Does God / a supreme being exist?

[Brain]

Discuss.

[Humerox]

We'll all find out when we die. :)

[Noselacri]

No.

[Uthgaard]

Confirming my existence.

[purist]

F- thread would not read again

[Bojangles]

Stupid question. Of course there is a Supreme, he is usually hanging out in EC tunnel. A simple /who all Supr would have saved you the need to make this thread.

[Kassel]

Bristlebane lives !

[Hodge]

http://www.lessthanmotivational.com/images//2009/05/pics-or-it-didnt-happen.jpeg

[Lucrio40]

To say yes, or to say no with any degree of certainty is an exercise in ignorance. The most intelligent response when asked such a question is quite simply "I don't know".

[Bojangles]

http://www.lessthanmotivational.com/images//2009/05/pics-or-it-didnt-happen.jpeg

Refusing to believe in anything that happened before the 1st photograph in 1814 certainly would make the study of history easier.

[bufferofnewbies]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y102/Bufferofnewbies/Christianity1.jpg

[Hodge]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y102/Bufferofnewbies/Christianity1.jpg

Word.

[Estolcles]

I have proof there is a supreme being/God:

I'm not a virgin.

:lol:

[Noselacri]

To say yes, or to say no with any degree of certainty is an exercise in ignorance. The most intelligent response when asked such a question is quite simply "I don't know".

This is true, although one could rightfully answer "I don't know, but no evidence supports the existence of any god, and countless evidence suggests the absence."

[Omnimorph]

Of course they do... i've seen cazic thule AND innoruuk.

[Bojangles]

Noselacri:
"[B]ut no evidence supports the existence of any god..."

Incorrect. There are huge numbers of eye witness accounts of a Supreme Being manifesting itself on earth, across most if not all cultures. You may wish to explain away these accounts (delusion, hyperbole, lies, metaphor, mistranslation, etc.) but that simply means you choose not to give credence to the evidence. It does not mean the evidence ceases to exist simply because you do not believe in it.

[purist]

True enlightenment can only be reached through worshiping the Lords Spicy, Crunchy, Melty, and Grilled at your local Taco Bell pals. Spicy likes it when you get Volcano Tacos, and Crunchy is cool with that too, but Melty and Grilled prefer the likes of Crunchwrap Supremes and Grilled Stuffed Burritos.

Your God has forsaken me until he brings back the Spicy Chicken Crunchwrap Supreme.

[Noselacri]

Noselacri:
"[B]ut no evidence supports the existence of any god..."

Incorrect. There are huge numbers of eye witness accounts of a Supreme Being manifesting itself on earth, across most if not all cultures. You may wish to explain away these accounts (delusion, hyperbole, lies, metaphor, mistranslation, etc.) but that simply means you choose not to give credence to the evidence. It does not mean the evidence ceases to exist simply because you do not believe in it.

Stories are not evidence. I could point you towards thousands of people who claim they've beed abducted by UFOs, but that's not evidence either; and, as with UFOs, witnessing divine manifestation is something that has been lied about (or mistakenly perceived) so frequently that the evidence would have to be absolutely undisputable. Photos of Jesus toast don't count.

[Noselacri]

"Edit:" religion is like ghosts and Bigfoot, just on a larger scale. Countless people claim to have seen God or something, but it has literally never been confirmed in any undeniable way. There are no truly credible accounts of divine intervention or anything of the sort. There exists no video footage, no really unexplainable phenomenon (that can be proven to have happened), and no event witnessed by enough people that you have to accept it as true. It's always some dubious guy totally feeling the presence of whatever religion he follows, only there happened to be nobody around at the time. I don't need to see everything before I believe it, but for something so supposedly universal to have literally never been proven beyond doubt, I'm afraid I don't buy it.

[fastboy21]

You don't have to believe in any supreme being. What I find interesting is how often people who don't believe (atheists) feel the need to reduce people of faith to little more than child-like minds that believe in the Easter bunny or Santa Claus.

There are plenty of extremely intelligent human beings (by scientific measure) that have concluded that there most be some supreme being/creator. To dismiss them is to conveniently ignore that that overwhelming majority of the human race also believes in some type of faith system.

You don't have to believe in anything. But, to dismiss the majority of the human race and some of its most intelligent and gifted members in a single sentence or two is the real act of ignorance.

I don't want to publicly discuss this anymore, because I do not want to reduce my faith in Christ to a side-show designed by a troll on the rants and flames boards. If anyone, however, has a real question of faith or curiosity about what it is all about PM me and I will get back to you.

[Noselacri]

I am equally weary of religious people who eagerly make themselves look victimized whenever their faith is opposed. You'll notice that I did not insult religious people, I only question the validity of any proof to the existence of any god. I do not equate belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, but I equate alleged sightings of divine manifestation to reported sightings of UFOs and the like: usually wildly unbelievable and literally never confirmed.

Virtually every defining aspect of Christianity is appropriated wholesale from other religions that far predate it. This is the main reason why I find it difficult to believe.

[Shaken]

Discuss.

I feel a little bit dumber having clicked on such a retarded thread. God doesn't believe in fantasy violence so your all going to hell.. Case closed

[Dragonthorne]

A couple of things...

You talk about beliefs and proof that something exists, yet you sit here from a computer and "talk" to people you have never seen, touched, etc. Just an observation...

Also, when the end of days come, and we all are confirmed this answer, would you not rather believe in God and chance that He might not be real, or don't believe in God and chance that He is real.

If my believing in God is a farce and there is no greater being, visceral or not, then I would have still lived a good life.

If, however, I live my life believing there is no God, and my end comes only for me to find out that there is, well...welcome to hell?

I don't understand people's need and desire to disprove something to everyone just for the kicks of it. This thread is not a rant, flame, etc...

[Seaweedpimp]

You don't have to believe in any supreme being. What I find interesting is how often people who don't believe (atheists) feel the need to reduce people of faith to little more than child-like minds that believe in the Easter bunny or Santa Claus.

Whats the difference?

[bufferofnewbies]

Althought I don't believe in a deity in any sense that would qualify it to become "God"; I am fairly confident that if there is one out there (or many..):

Take the majority of religions out there (minus the few truly nutcase ones), keep everything they have in common. Disreguard everything they disagree upon.

That's what "God" wants...

[Omnimorph]

Whats the difference?

2 of the 3 were designed as exploitatives to make money... and the easter bunny just flat out exists.

The existence of god never bothered me, the idea of organised religion does, because essentially you're just believing what someone else is telling you. Man is fallible, god is infallible, but if a man tells you god exists you should take it as gospel.

And to the person who uneloquently quoted Pascal's wager... i'd like to think that a supreme being had a bit of a better screening process for allowing people to enter heaven :D

[Ocaevia]

You don't have to believe in any supreme being. What I find interesting is how often people who don't believe (atheists) feel the need to reduce people of faith to little more than child-like minds that believe in the Easter bunny or Santa Claus.

There are plenty of extremely intelligent human beings (by scientific measure) that have concluded that there most be some supreme being/creator. To dismiss them is to conveniently ignore that that overwhelming majority of the human race also believes in some type of faith system.

You don't have to believe in anything. But, to dismiss the majority of the human race and some of its most intelligent and gifted members in a single sentence or two is the real act of ignorance.

I don't want to publicly discuss this anymore, because I do not want to reduce my faith in Christ to a side-show designed by a troll on the rants and flames boards. If anyone, however, has a real question of faith or curiosity about what it is all about PM me and I will get back to you.


^ This.

[Japan]

There are plenty of extremely intelligent human beings (by scientific measure) that have concluded that there most be some supreme being/creator. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)To dismiss them is to conveniently ignore that that overwhelming majority of the human race also believes in some type of faith system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

Two links for two fallacies, caveman. Let's talk about the lack of evidence in support of organized religion and not who and how many people buy into this nonsense.

[Theldios]

LOL I know it constatly changes but why is there an ad for scientology at the bottom of this thread lol
at least thats what i see.

[Thrynn]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/images/rickrolled.jpg

[Malrubius]

You don't have to believe in any supreme being. What I find interesting is how often people who don't believe (atheists) feel the need to reduce people of faith to little more than child-like minds that believe in the Easter bunny or Santa Claus.

There are plenty of extremely intelligent human beings (by scientific measure) that have concluded that there most be some supreme being/creator. To dismiss them is to conveniently ignore that that overwhelming majority of the human race also believes in some type of faith system.

You don't have to believe in anything. But, to dismiss the majority of the human race and some of its most intelligent and gifted members in a single sentence or two is the real act of ignorance.

I don't want to publicly discuss this anymore, because I do not want to reduce my faith in Christ to a side-show designed by a troll on the rants and flames boards. If anyone, however, has a real question of faith or curiosity about what it is all about PM me and I will get back to you.

Damn - you just won the thread! :D

[Villide]

A couple of things...

You talk about beliefs and proof that something exists, yet you sit here from a computer and "talk" to people you have never seen, touched, etc. Just an observation...

Also, when the end of days come, and we all are confirmed this answer, would you not rather believe in God and chance that He might not be real, or don't believe in God and chance that He is real.

If my believing in God is a farce and there is no greater being, visceral or not, then I would have still lived a good life.

If, however, I live my life believing there is no God, and my end comes only for me to find out that there is, well...welcome to hell?

I don't understand people's need and desire to disprove something to everyone just for the kicks of it. This thread is not a rant, flame, etc...

I think this is a bit laughable. Would I rather believe in God and chance he might be real? Sure, if it were that easy. But how do you force yourself to believe in something? Won't God know I'm just saying the right things in order to get something I want at the end?

How about this - if I die and I arrive at the pearly gates and God is waiting for me, I'll salute him and profess my belief in his existence at that time.

If I live a good life, treat my fellow human beings with respect and can't get into heaven because I didn't spend my whole life kissing the ass of God...well fuck him AND his exclusive country club. The fact that some dirtbag can have a deathbed confession and get into heaven while someone else can live a clean life and end up in hell...well, I have a tough time believing that a benevolent God would allow such a thing.

Ultimately, I do think people that argue over which religion is the "right" religion might as well be arguing over whether Scooby Doo or Spiderman is the "real" God. Organized religion is a ridiculous brainwashing of the masses that's been going on for way too long - it amazes me that people still fall for this nonsense.

[Villide]

There are plenty of extremely intelligent human beings (by scientific measure) that have concluded that there most be some supreme being/creator. To dismiss them is to conveniently ignore that that overwhelming majority of the human race also believes in some type of faith system.

You don't have to believe in anything. But, to dismiss the majority of the human race and some of its most intelligent and gifted members in a single sentence or two is the real act of ignorance.
I'd hazard that many of these "intelligent" and "gifted" members of the world were brainwashed with religion in the early stages of their lives. The fact that a majority of the world's peoples believe in one particular religion or another is proof of how firmly entrenched that brainwashing can be at an early age.

I have no problem with people that believe in religion - my wife is pretty religious, and I attend church with her occasionally. She's a very intelligent woman - but she went to church every Sunday growing up. There is no argument from a scientific perspective that will convince her that she's wasting her time. She has the trump card of "faith" on her side. And that's fine. Ultimately, her faith will benefit her, one way or the other.

If you die believing there's a heaven and you get in...fantastic. If not, and you're just worm food? You won't know any better, right?

[Japan]

By responding to those fallacious arguments you weaken your (my) position. Think harder.

[Maurk]

the universe is god
a huge collection of energy
and when we die we come part of the universe

we are all god
O_O

[Maurk]

my sentence structures suck for some reason today

[Japan]

O_O

[Omnimorph]

The REAL question is, why should we give a fuck?

We're just trying to think outside the bun man...

[Bojangles]

Stories are not evidence. I could point you towards thousands of people who claim they've beed abducted by UFOs, but that's not evidence either; and, as with UFOs, witnessing divine manifestation is something that has been lied about (or mistakenly perceived) so frequently that the evidence would have to be absolutely undisputable. Photos of Jesus toast don't count.

Are you retarded? Of course stories are evidence. In a court of law they are called "eye witness accounts." Again, the amount of credence these stories should be given can be debated, but it is not debatable that it is indeed evidence. You simply refuse to believe the evidence is truthful; it doesn't change the fact that these accounts fit the definition of evidence.

There are a lot of credible reports of the existence of aliens. The problem is that once closed-minded people like yourself make up their mind what the answer is, they discard all evidence to the contrary. If you assume aliens do not exist, whenever you are confronted with evidence of aliens you will automatically assume the evidence is fake. In this situation there is no amount of evidence that could change your mind, since you would dismiss it all out of hand.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/27/ufos-showed-interest-in-nukes-ex-air-force-personnel-say/?hpt=T2

http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/new-ufo-sightings-in-china-11813189

http://www.mufon.com/

Note how the only opposition to this is from a snob who seems peeved that this guy didn't send him the data.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/11/scientist-claims-strange-signal-comes-alien-planet/?test=latestnews

I know its wikipedia, but if you don't trust it then look up their source documents. Pay especial attention to the real people with credible jobs who have been officially admitted to having been present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_incident#Witness_accounts_emerge



Virtually every defining aspect of Christianity is appropriated wholesale from other religions that far predate it. This is the main reason why I find it difficult to believe.

This shows your bias. A set of beliefs is passed along through time and you assume that somehow this invalidates its claims to being a universal truth. I'm sure that when you rip on Scientology you point to how it was created out of whole cloth only a few decades ago as proof that it should not be believed.

Similar to how you discount all alien evidence because you have already made up your small, closed mind about what you want to believe, you choose to believe or to discount evidence based upon whether it supports your pre-existing opinions, not whether your arguments make sense or contradict themselves.


I'd hazard that many of these "intelligent" and "gifted" members of the world were brainwashed with religion in the early stages of their lives. The fact that a majority of the world's peoples believe in one particular religion or another is proof of how firmly entrenched that brainwashing can be at an early age.



Such small-minded self-righteousness. What proof do you have that it is the religious that have been brain-washed and not yourself? You'd rather believe that a vast majority of all humans who have ever lived are wrong rather than to face the truth: either they are right, or you are just as brainwashed as they are because you choose to believe in something whole-heartedly that cannot be 100% proven or disproven. There is no 'win' situation for an atheist, unlike the religious or the agnostic.

[ryuut1]

True enlightenment can only be reached through worshiping the Lords Spicy, Crunchy, Melty, and Grilled at your local Taco Bell pals. Spicy likes it when you get Volcano Tacos, and Crunchy is cool with that too, but Melty and Grilled prefer the likes of Crunchwrap Supremes and Grilled Stuffed Burritos.

as you know, fourth, i am the supreme priest of spicy. (just finished off some volcano nachos too)

VOLCANO SAUCE FOREVER!

[Malrubius]

the universe is god
a huge collection of energy
and when we die we come part of the universe

we are all god
O_O

This is Tolstoy's belief as well. "All this moving to and fro" == god. Life is god. I happen to believe that Life exists. If nothing else, I do this because its fun to piss off people like Japan :D . Yes, I'm pretty sure Tolstoy actually said that too.

[Japan]

This is Tolstoy's belief as well. "All this moving to and fro" == god. Life is god. I happen to believe that Life exists. If nothing else, I do this because its fun to piss off people like Japan :D . Yes, I'm pretty sure Tolstoy actually said that too.

i'm not mad homie, this definition actually makes sense

the laws of the universe created us; the laws are god.

[Ronas]

on a more serious note, would recommend deleting this thread. There two taboo discussion that shouldnt really be mentioned in sociality because of the conflicts of thoughts and emotions that could play out in it. Religion and Politics.

But whatever, carry on.

[Slade_the_Slide]

Discuss.

No evidence to suggest there is. Until I see proof? No.

But I'm open-minded about it.

[Trademaster]

If you need the threat of heaven or hell, with some vengful being watching over you ready to eternally damn you in order to not be a jerk, then go for it.

If you can be a decent person without the threat of punishment from an overbearing father figure then go for it.

If there is a form of afterlife and something is going to judge my actions in life to determine weather it will be pleasant or nasty, I would hope that the judgment was on how I lived my life and not weather or not I provided lip service to a corporation that derives it's authority by stating that they are the conduit to a supreme being.

As for evidence, I've read reports of people stating that they have been touched physically by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I still have my doubts as to the veracity of their claims. At least their church is a pirate ship, and their base tenet is "don't be a jerk to others". Oh, and the diminishing number of pirates is the cause of global warming. It's true, they have a chart.

[Humerox]

Live a good life, procreate, and be nice to everybody.

If there's a god, you'll be cool. If not, people will say nice things about you and keep your gravestone clean.

Word.

[Thelastaxi]

I think the notion of a god of infinite love sending me to hell to burn forever for doubting his existence is absurd at best.

[Stanlei]

If you haven't seen this, watch it. If you have then you know what I'm talking about. If you are religious, please click this, don't just skip it either. He makes some VERY valid points. I for one agree with Bill, if we (humans) don't quit talking to invisable people we are all dead, period.

When you take a step back and think about all the things that your religion tells you are unacceptable, ask yourself, would God (an all knowing being) act in these ways? believe in these things? promote violence like religious people do?

Please read up on Horus (Egyptian Sun God) Or Indra, Joseph (from the bible), almost any major regligious icon and tell me that you can't make the exact same story about cristianity if you just put "Jesus" in the story insted of any of these figures.

Biggest problem with christians is they don't even study their own religion, they are simply taught at a young age to do as your told and not ask questions. Questions are heresy and will not be tolerated. If you care to dispute this with me feel free, I went to a cathloic school and had first hand experience on how christians are taught.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jETVUulGwc

[Villide]

Such small-minded self-righteousness. What proof do you have that it is the religious that have been brain-washed and not yourself? You'd rather believe that a vast majority of all humans who have ever lived are wrong rather than to face the truth: either they are right, or you are just as brainwashed as they are because you choose to believe in something whole-heartedly that cannot be 100% proven or disproven. There is no 'win' situation for an atheist, unlike the religious or the agnostic.
Perhaps I am brainwashed, but that does not preclude the possibility that you are as well.

Difference is, I was brainwashed into the cult of religion at an early age. When I grew up, I required a bit of evidence to continue believing in some invisible, all-powerful being. That evidence just doesn't exist. Until it does, I'll continue to see it the way I see it.

I know, I know...this is the part of the program where we discuss "faith". So I'll just concede the victory to you on this argument, because there's no way I can win that one.

[Villide]

I think the notion of a god of infinite love sending me to hell to burn forever for doubting his existence is absurd at best.
THIS. What an interesting concept, eh?

[Theldios]

I went to a cathloic school and had first hand experience on how christians are taught.


Really so you went to Catechism or just to a Catholic Church owned school?
There is a big difference you know.

So if you did go to Catechism then you must have learned the Seven Sacraments correct?
So do tell what are they?

[Malrubius]

I think the notion of a god of infinite love sending me to hell to burn forever for doubting his existence is absurd at best.

Me too. But I don't see what that has to do with the idea of God, or a god, existing or not existing.

Most Atheists and many Christians tend to think of God as an old man in the sky and/or something like what you describe.

Both groups should seriously consider evolving. Read Tolstoy's views, or the Dalai Lama's, or hell, even Einstein's...

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Again...evolve (as much as you can on an internet forum anyway :p ).

[isitatomic]

A boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth.

If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.

As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.



(Bakunin was an international terrorist and a miserable political theorist, but when you're right you're right)

[Aarone]

Sigh.....

[Dach]

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

Sincerely,

God

[Bojangles]

I am amazed at how many of you just don't get it. There is evidence. It is indisputable that evidence exists. The veracity of the evidence is what can be disputed.

"There is no evidence" is an objective statement which can be easily disproven.

"There is no evidence that I find credible" is a subjective statement.


A boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth.

If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.

As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.



(Bakunin was an international terrorist and a miserable political theorist, but when you're right you're right)


Wow, way to denigrate your own source.



Perhaps I am brainwashed, but that does not preclude the possibility that you are as well.


Is it possible to be brainwashed to be a lapsed Catholic agnostic who can't quite bring himself to give a shit about his own beliefs, much less others' beliefs? I think my (lack of) beliefs is a pretty good sign that I am not brainwashed. My problem with the atheists is that it ticks off my OCD need for accuracy and logic. Stating that there is no evidence for the existence of God when there obviously is evidence makes me start to twitch. Debate the accuracy of that evidence all you want.


Difference is, I was brainwashed into the cult of religion at an early age. When I grew up, I required a bit of evidence to continue believing in some invisible, all-powerful being. That evidence just doesn't exist. Until it does, I'll continue to see it the way I see it.

I know, I know...this is the part of the program where we discuss "faith". So I'll just concede the victory to you on this argument, because there's no way I can win that one.

Now you seem to be saying that you do not believe 1 way or the other. In which case my twitching at logical inaccuracy will subside.

[Kassel]

I am amazed at how many of you just don't get it. There is evidence. It is indisputable that evidence exists.

do tell

[Goobles]

If you haven't done mushrooms, then you won't know anything about God or whatever it's called.

In my opinion.. yes, there is. But I believe that religion is shit. It's all the same people. Learn about them.

[Maurk]

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m294/Mapko666/Christianitychart.jpg

[fastboy21]

Explain to me how "the dark ages" were caused by Christianity again?

(They weren't.)

[Yam]

Explain to me how "the dark ages" were caused by Christianity again?

(They weren't.)

(They were)

[fastboy21]

The so-called Dark Ages are usually referred to as the gap between the fall of Rome and beginning of the Renaissance. This is about a 1000 year period between around 500 and 1500 AD. The dating is very rough because the term (like all historical terms) are man made and imperfect.

The "Dark Ages", for example, was coined by Plutarch who was referring more to the decline of literature and advanced arts when he first used the term. Since then the term has been badly used to describe a wretched existence of the European people. This use is highly debated, and historians today (generally) agree that the Middle Ages were not really all that "Dark" anyways.

Most historians center the beginning of the Dark Ages on the collapse of order in Western Europe that occurred when the western Roman Empire collapsed and its institutions ceased to exist. In this power vacuum entered an extremely chaotic and violent power struggle.

In the eastern Roman Empire, which held out until 1453, the Dark Ages never happened. They were ravaged by the same diseases, fought wars just as violent, were Christians, etc, and yet did not enter a "Dark Age" in their own history.

So, what caused the Roman Empire in the west to fall? Sir Edward Gibbon wrote his famous work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776. He does state that he blames Christianity for the fall of the empire as a primary cause. Unfortunately, his work has been examined and largely discredited in the last 200+ years. It is widely known that Gibbon was an extreme anti-Catholic in his own lifetime and was most likely heavily biased when he blamed the Christian Church for the fall of Rome. Today, Gibbon is usually acknowledged as a father in the historiography for his work (which was extremely original at the time), but I am unaware of any graduate program in classical studies today that puts Gibbon on their reading list other than to pay him his hat honor. His work, simply, is unusable as a source in any academic work due to the major inaccuracies he assumed for fact in the 18th century.

While I am aware that Christianity is often blamed for the fall of the Roman Empire in popular culture, I have never seen any credible source that argues the assertion with even a small amount of believability. There are just far too many other reasons why the western Roman Empire fell that have nothing to do with Christianity.

Its also important to remember that the Catholic Church was weak at the beginning of the "Dark Ages." It was only after several hundred years after the Romans fell in the West that the Church emerged as a powerful political institution. For most of the time period that the Church held control of Europe during the Middle Ages (the High Middle Ages) there was prosperity: the quality of life increased for the peasants/serfs, the life expectancy increased due to good nutrition, population boomed for the first time since the fall of Rome.

The Crisis at the end of the Middle Ages (the Late Middle Ages) was certainly, in part, due to the corruption of the Catholic Church. It was also due to global cooling, famine, black plague, and warfare. The corruption of the Church, however, mostly occurred at its highest levels and clergy and laypeople at the bottom remained true to their faiths. The Conciliar movement, for example, was a challenge to the corruption of the papacy but was lead by priests and laypeople from within the Church.

In any case, I find it hard to understand why Christianity would be the cause of the Dark Ages---which, really, weren't that dark to begin with.

**goes back to sleep**

[fastboy21]

*petrarch, not plutarch (should wake up before writing).

[Yam]

I'm sorry. "The Dark Ages" is a very misleading term. The Early Middle Ages in Western Europe were, however, marked by gross corruption in the church. You cannot refute that the various Western Christian empires suffered horribly from infighting, intellectual stagnation, and the unavailability of Greek/Latin texts in the sciences. The Byzantine Empire (which is left out of the 'Dark Ages' label) and Arabic countries did not suffer so.

Yes, the 'Dark Ages' are largely a misnomer and not as terribly as popular culture leads us to believe, but the Early Middle Ages in Western Europe were indeed dictated by the various Christian churches and much of previous scientific knowledge was blocked by the church. Don't go all Devil's Advocate on this shit.

[Yam]

Don't go all Devil's Advocate on this shit.

Because that'll get you hung.

[Stanlei]

Really so you went to Catechism or just to a Catholic Church owned school?
There is a big difference you know.

So if you did go to Catechism then you must have learned the Seven Sacraments correct?
So do tell what are they?

I'd have hanged myself had I gone to Catechism, no, I attended a Catholic School owned by a church. And if you think that having more knowledge than me on this topic and still believing in it proves anything other than that you are even more easily misled (brainwashed) than most, you are sorely mistaken.
Honestly I can not understand why any (free thinking) person that actually has researched the knowledge and history of organized religion can still believe in it.
At one point I was like the rest of you church-goers, however it took a VERY small amount of research to actually see the corruption that organized religion pushes. Infact, I'd wager that the world would be largely without war or poverty if the idea of organized religion had never been invented.
You can not use the excuse that you've "felt the presence of god" as a basis of argument either, as you have never met the fuker therefore you have no idea what his presence feels like.
Furthermore, the people that you (as church-goers) have "running the show" are filthy rich, something that your messiah openly stated would get you nothing more than pain and anguish. Yet you abide what they say as if it were fact? You listen to them in their decision making without investigating for yourself what their internal motives are? Sounds an awful lot like suicide bombers to me. At least the kamikazes had it right, they were at the very least killing them selves for a REAL reason. Not some falsification used to create an international military.
Put it to you this way, if the church calls a war against another religion you will vow your support 100%, the reason you "believe" in something bigger than yourself. News flash dickhead, so did Jim Jones.

[Stanlei]

Put it to you this way, if the church calls a war against another religion you will vow your support 100%, the reason? you "believe" in something bigger than yourself. News flash dickhead, so did Jim Jones.


fixt

[Stanlei]

Really so you went to Catechism or just to a Catholic Church owned school?
There is a big difference you know.

So if you did go to Catechism then you must have learned the Seven Sacraments correct?
So do tell what are they?

oh, and I made it to confermation. I still have my stupid baptism flag that we made at school, and vaguely remember Eucharist (1st communion) and my first reconciliation (or penance).

Apparently you don't need to go to Catechism to partake in these events, or I was mislead and I actually was going to Catechism. However I find this entirely unlikely because I didn't even learn what Catechism was untill after I left that school.

[Stanlei]

confirmation.

sry, late and I'm tired.

[bufferofnewbies]

How's this for an idea?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y102/Bufferofnewbies/demotivational-posters-religion.jpg

[Estolcles]

*steals the Religion demotivational poster, posts it to his FB wall*

[Bojangles]

How's this for an idea?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y102/Bufferofnewbies/demotivational-posters-religion.jpg

So only pedophiles and nudists can preach religion? Are you sure that is wise? [insert your own catholic priest joke here; I don't want to burn for eternity]

[Seaweedpimp]

So only pedophiles and nudists can preach religion? Are you sure that is wise? [insert your own catholic priest joke here; I don't want to burn for eternity]

Ill burn for ya bro

:)

[Bojangles]

Ill burn for ya bro

:)

Then give us a joke, dammit! ;)

[bufferofnewbies]

here ya go. some help: if you need it.
just change the underlined parts to something more un-generic

Q: How many of a group does it take to perform a task?
A: N. One to do the primary activity and N-1 to do something loosely related.
Oh, those stupid people in group.

[quellren]

So only pedophiles and nudists can preach religion? Are you sure that is wise? [insert your own catholic priest joke here; I don't want to burn for eternity]

You missed the meaning of that so badly it's laughable.

[Japan]

I've got a bone to pick with you fucking idiots posting watermarked images from sites with names like "memegenerator.com"

Why the fuck are you interested in p99 if you discovered the internet 5 months ago?

[bufferofnewbies]

perhaps it was just a picture that offered humor.
I see no reason why you shouldn't give credit to someone who has done the work for you. But I guess you don't understand the complexity of that thought. My bad for offending your delicate side.

[jbs89]

We'll all find out when we die. :)

some find out sooner

[Fourthmeal]

Visit your local Taco Bell for such answers

[wodiranger]

i finally jsut figured out where Forthmeal got his name when i was at my local taco bell earlier this week, lol figured it out when drinking my baja mountain dew outta my taco bell cup!

[Akim]

Discuss.

Yes

[aggresor223]

Noselacri:
"[B]ut no evidence supports the existence of any god..."

Incorrect. There are huge numbers of eye witness accounts of a Supreme Being manifesting itself on earth, across most if not all cultures. You may wish to explain away these accounts (delusion, hyperbole, lies, metaphor, mistranslation, etc.) but that simply means you choose not to give credence to the evidence. It does not mean the evidence ceases to exist simply because you do not believe in it.

It's called drugs....:rolleyes:

[aggresor223]

You don't have to believe in any supreme being. What I find interesting is how often people who don't believe (atheists) feel the need to reduce people of faith to little more than child-like minds that believe in the Easter bunny or Santa Claus.

There are plenty of extremely intelligent human beings (by scientific measure) that have concluded that there most be some supreme being/creator. To dismiss them is to conveniently ignore that that overwhelming majority of the human race also believes in some type of faith system.

You don't have to believe in anything. But, to dismiss the majority of the human race and some of its most intelligent and gifted members in a single sentence or two is the real act of ignorance.

I don't want to publicly discuss this anymore, because I do not want to reduce my faith in Christ to a side-show designed by a troll on the rants and flames boards. If anyone, however, has a real question of faith or curiosity about what it is all about PM me and I will get back to you.

You made me laugh :p

[PoeticPixie]

The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking is a good read (remember his statement that pissed everyone off from that book?). Not that I'm strictly scientific in my beliefs, I kind of believe a little bit of a lot of different things. I'm not sure how to even put it into words. All that matters is that it makes sense to me. Spirituality is a very personal journey. I just wish some of the close-minded people I'm going to college with would admit evolution is a fact. I thought at the college level people would be smarter than this. I can understand some of the older crowd maybe being this way (older than me even/am 33). However, a lot of them are way younger than me as well! Anyways, it's nice to encounter a bunch of open-minded people (for a change). I got sick of pointless debates.

[larvalgeek]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

[Humerox]

Spirituality is a very personal journey.

This.

The problem is that everyone gets all discombobulated about making other people believe what they do. Who really gives a shit?

It doesn't matter what religion you follow...most have the same basic precepts. I mean look at Buddhism and the Five Precepts:


1. abstain from taking life.
2. abstain from taking what is not given.
3. abstain from sexual misconduct.
4. abstain from false speech.
5. abstain from drinking fermented drink.

Some of that should sound familiar to Christians. Live a good life and you'll be cool with whatever is out there.

Peace.

[Teseer]

I'm dead convinced most holy books were written by some crazy clown after eating a strange psychosis inducing plant.

Would be funny, if it was true, for the guy to see how many people are goin NUTS over his insane scribblings.

[Dest]

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/troll_thread.jpg

[Bodeanicus]

Are you retarded? Of course stories are evidence. In a court of law they are called "eye witness accounts." Again, the amount of credence these stories should be given can be debated, but it is not debatable that it is indeed evidence. You simply refuse to believe the evidence is truthful; it doesn't change the fact that these accounts fit the definition of evidence.

There are a lot of credible reports of the existence of aliens. The problem is that once closed-minded people like yourself make up their mind what the answer is, they discard all evidence to the contrary. If you assume aliens do not exist, whenever you are confronted with evidence of aliens you will automatically assume the evidence is fake. In this situation there is no amount of evidence that could change your mind, since you would dismiss it all out of hand.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/27/ufos-showed-interest-in-nukes-ex-air-force-personnel-say/?hpt=T2

http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/new-ufo-sightings-in-china-11813189

http://www.mufon.com/

Note how the only opposition to this is from a snob who seems peeved that this guy didn't send him the data.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/11/scientist-claims-strange-signal-comes-alien-planet/?test=latestnews

I know its wikipedia, but if you don't trust it then look up their source documents. Pay especial attention to the real people with credible jobs who have been officially admitted to having been present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_incident#Witness_accounts_emerge



This shows your bias. A set of beliefs is passed along through time and you assume that somehow this invalidates its claims to being a universal truth. I'm sure that when you rip on Scientology you point to how it was created out of whole cloth only a few decades ago as proof that it should not be believed.

Similar to how you discount all alien evidence because you have already made up your small, closed mind about what you want to believe, you choose to believe or to discount evidence based upon whether it supports your pre-existing opinions, not whether your arguments make sense or contradict themselves.




Such small-minded self-righteousness. What proof do you have that it is the religious that have been brain-washed and not yourself? You'd rather believe that a vast majority of all humans who have ever lived are wrong rather than to face the truth: either they are right, or you are just as brainwashed as they are because you choose to believe in something whole-heartedly that cannot be 100% proven or disproven. There is no 'win' situation for an atheist, unlike the religious or the agnostic.

Linking to Fox News just destroyed any credibility you may have had. Goodbye.

[Bojangles]

You missed the meaning of that so badly it's laughable.

Right back at you.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

This argument was explained away thousands of years ago in the Book of Job.
short version: God does what God does for His reasons, humans cannot understand. Furthermore, most religions believe that God gave us free will. Evil exists because humans choose to do evil, and God has chosen not to directly interfere. Even us foolish humans realize that having the power to do something doesn't mean we should automatically do so.

Fastboy21:
Nice post!

Linking to Fox News just destroyed any credibility you may have had. Goodbye.

I'm talking about the existence of aliens, and you call me on using foxnews as a source. God damn your bias goes deep.

[Slade_the_Slide]

do tell

Please show us! I mean if you have evidence that would convince any/everyone why not share it with the world? Every news station would love to broadcast such evidence. Take it to Richard Dawkins and all others. You alone could hold the key to showing the whole world god does exist! What are you waiting for!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!:eek::eek::eek::eek:

[Slade_the_Slide]

^^ was meant for the guy who says there is evidence

[Slade_the_Slide]

Right back at you.



This argument was explained away thousands of years ago in the Book of Job.
short version: God does what God does for His reasons, humans cannot understand. Furthermore, most religions believe that God gave us free will. Evil exists because humans choose to do evil, and God has chosen not to directly interfere. Even us foolish humans realize that having the power to do something doesn't mean we should automatically do so.

Fastboy21:
Nice post!



I'm talking about the existence of aliens, and you call me on using foxnews as a source. God damn your bias goes deep.

Using the Bible as evidence of God is circular. God must be realz coz the bible done says so! The bibles is right because God wrote it!!!!

And using Job of all books...wow. What better way to show God's a humongous raging asshole than the book of Job. If God does exist, I hope it's not that douchebag.

[Dukat]

I believe in a supreme being though I do not subscribe to any organized religion. In my opinion, just as the cells of our body are each individually alive and yet create a much larger human organism, we and our planet and everything else are part of something much larger than anything we can ever realistically imagine. That something would have to be God.

[quido]

Fact: The Bible has been edited throughout history.

Is God responsible for these revisions? For The Bible to truly be the word of God he would have to be.

The Bible is not the word of God. The Bible has changed throughout time to match credible accounts of history so people can have more "faith" in it.

Most likely, no human being has ever been privy to any sort of divine communication or intervention.

Accept this life for what it is because it's probably the only one you're going to get. Religion is a tool in the subjugation of humanity.

There may be a higher power; it makes sense that there is, but I don't know. I'm comfortable in my ignorance. I don't need a fucking bullshit fairy tale.


"If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words."
-Isaac Asimov

[Awwalike]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/images/rickrolled.jpg

QQ for all you believing.
Bye now.

[Tajin898]

Fact: The Bible has been edited throughout history.

Is God responsible for these revisions? For The Bible to truly be the word of God he would have to be.

The Bible is not the word of God. The Bible has changed throughout time to match credible accounts of history so people can have more "faith" in it.

Most likely, no human being has ever been privy to any sort of divine communication or intervention.

Accept this life for what it is because it's probably the only one you're going to get. Religion is a tool in the subjugation of humanity.

There may be a higher power; it makes sense that there is, but I don't know. I'm comfortable in my ignorance. I don't need a fucking bullshit fairy tale.


"If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words."
-Isaac Asimov

I would LOVE for you to explain how the Bible has been edited throughout history.

Please explain, theologically speaking (what the Bible teaches about anything/everything) how the Bible has been edited or changed in anyway.

If you are referring to textual variants, then please be educated and don't make statements like "the Bible has been edited." That in no way prepares a hearer for the truth of the Bible's manuscript history.

First, there are textual disputes, which are the fewest in number (accounting for less than 1% of all textual variation throughout all of the manuscript evidence of the Old and New Testament btw). An example of a textual dispute would be something like - This Greek/Hebrew manuscript says this, but this Greek/Hebrew MSS says that. What did the author originally write here? (Again, give me ONE example of how this type of variant has altered the text in a theological sense.)

The other type of dispute is translational. An example of translational disputes would be something like - the underlying Greek/Hebrew manuscript uses this word. What does this word translate to in English? Bible translators have to make decisions about how to translate the Greek and Hebrew into English, and being the scholars that they are, who better to make translational decisions about the manuscript than Greek and Hebrew linguistics scholars? Yet again, to argue your term "edited", the process through which the Bible has been copied and reproduced throughout history is not summed up in the term "edited."

There is a very intense, scholarly, un-hidden process that you can study and read up on that will save you the need to use terms like "edited" in the future. Again, for the sake of right thinking, this argument is in no way meant to sway anyway away from or toward the Christian faith, only trying to shed some light on some helpful terminology when it comes to talking about the truth of the Bible and how it has been preserved over time.

I'm not going to read back over this to proofread, sorry for any errors.

[quellren]

I would LOVE for you to explain how the Bible has been edited throughout history.


You mean like when the Catholic church simply removed whole books because they didn't tell the story the way they wanted?

Or when certain manuscripts, like the dead sea scrolls were simply ignored as not gospel?

Editing like that?

[Tajin898]

You mean like when the Catholic church simply removed whole books because they didn't tell the story the way they wanted?

Or when certain manuscripts, like the dead sea scrolls were simply ignored as not gospel?

Editing like that?

The Catholic church didn't remove any books, rather they added apocryhpal books at the Council of Trent largely in response to the Protestant Reformation.

Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't ignored as much as they were seen as tools, mainly translational tools. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained a majority amount of Apocryphal writings, and the biblical manuscripts they did contain gave scholars a great resource by extended the Bible's manuscript history back by a millennium (which made it possible to even more accurately determine the Bible's integrity of preservation and transmission).

However, as far as the Biblical text goes, at least the text of the Protestant Bible (which contains the books accepted and verified by the 1st century church) has not been "edited" in any way that would change or effect the theologies and key doctrinal teachings of the Christian faith.

[quellren]

The Catholic church didn't remove any books, rather they added apocryhpal books at the Council of Trent largely in response to the Protestant Reformation.
That's a matter of semantics... the Catholic Church only canonized the parts they wanted in response to the Protestant Reformation. At one time, the bible contained several more books that are not part of the standard bible today. The Catholic church only officially sanctioned the parts of the bible they deemed worthy, starting with the Council of Hippo around 390 AD. Thus, they in essence edited the bible to suit their theology.

Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't ignored as much as they were seen as tools, mainly translational tools. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained a majority amount of Apocryphal writings, and the biblical manuscripts they did contain gave scholars a great resource by extended the Bible's manuscript history back by a millennium (which made it possible to even more accurately determine the Bible's integrity of preservation and transmission).

So if you agree that they were relevant to the bible, why did the authorities deem it appropriate to paraphrase them and not just include them as more of the 'word of god'? Kinda negates the validity of being from his mouth if it's paraphrased by man.

[bionicbadger]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

[Bojangles]

Please show us! I mean if you have evidence that would convince any/everyone why not share it with the world? Every news station would love to broadcast such evidence. Take it to Richard Dawkins and all others. You alone could hold the key to showing the whole world god does exist! What are you waiting for!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Please show me where I claim I can prove the existence of God. All I am doing is stating the 100% factual statement that there is evidence of the existence of God, namely the eye witness accounts that have been passed down to us. As I have said again and again, this doesn't necessarily prove the existence of God, it merely shows that those who say "there is 0 evidence" are incorrect. Whether you choose to believe that evidence is convincing or not has nothing to do with my argument.

Using the Bible as evidence of God is circular. God must be realz coz the bible done says so! The bibles is right because God wrote it!!!!

And using Job of all books...wow. What better way to show God's a humongous raging asshole than the book of Job. If God does exist, I hope it's not that douchebag.

It is not circular, the argument is contained within itself. People saw God, or what they thought was God, and passed along stories. Those stories were collected in an anthology. If you believe the stories, then of course you believe in God. If you believe in God, then of course you believe the stories because that is where the belief came from. Neither belief leads to the other belief, they exist simultaneously.

The Christian concept of God is far beyond the comprehension of humans. He isn't an ass, he is unknowable.

[nukem419]

Here's the two main issues I have with the whole god thing.

Morality: Religions tend to treat this whole issue by using axioms delivered to us either directly by god or indirectly though a prophet. If you ask a follower of a given faith why can't you break such and such rule they will respond with a simple "because god said so". I believe this is wrong, god in a moral context is not automatically granted special immunity because he has super powers. It's a two way street and he has to play by his own rules. With that in mind morality takes on a more philosophical role and must operate inside an alternate mode such as a social contract even in the presence of a god. I believe Buddha once said that even the gods are bound by karma.

Genuine good and evil requires free will. Humans exist inside of a dynamic and through a never ending cycle of cause and effect this dynamic defines who we are from one second to the next. It is through this process that we are able to make choices. in it's simplist form there are only 4 objects of concern in this dynamic. An input, a state, an output, and rules. if any three are know the forth can be determined.
Because of this device it is possible to predict with absolute certainty the future choices of a person if all other variables are taken into account. However, if all of our future actions are deterministic in nature how can we have a free will?


With that in mind it doesn't really matter if god exists or not, it doesn't change anything for us down here.

[Slade_the_Slide]

I believe in a supreme being though I do not subscribe to any organized religion. In my opinion, just as the cells of our body are each individually alive and yet create a much larger human organism, we and our planet and everything else are part of something much larger than anything we can ever realistically imagine. That something would have to be God.

Cool concept, but we've seen outside of our world. Unless the universe itself is one giant sentient being, then this is also a false claim. But that's the closest to a supreme being as we'd get.

[Slade_the_Slide]

It is not circular, the argument is contained within itself. People saw God, or what they thought was God, and passed along stories. Those stories were collected in an anthology. If you believe the stories, then of course you believe in God. If you believe in God, then of course you believe the stories because that is where the belief came from. Neither belief leads to the other belief, they exist simultaneously.

The Christian concept of God is far beyond the comprehension of humans. He isn't an ass, he is unknowable.

"He's unknowable" "He's beyond your comprehension"

Meaning, I should not be punished for not believing in such a being. I think that's the biggest cop-out argument ever. When cornered with any argument you resort to "Well, it's just beyond your understanding"

Please tell me how you know this? Don't use the Bible yet again as evidence. That's as much evidence as toilet paper.

[Bojangles]

Those 2 paragraphs were addressing 2 different arguments of yours, namely the 2 paragraphs I quoted. My para 1 is in response to your para 1, my para 2 is in response to your para 2.

You attempted to prove that God doesn't exist by saying His actions are insane. I am pointing out the counter-argument of Christians, which is that we cannot possibly understand the motivations and plans of God, therefore negating our ability to judge His actions.


Again you seem too stupid to realize I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I'm arguing that your "proofs" of his lack of existence have already been countered, and that there is evidence of the existence of God (with the level of credence given to that evidence not being relevant to the argument.)


Still waiting for you to show me where I claim I can prove the existence of God.