Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

Of course you are. Cause you're not the one who was harmed. Yet you're quick to call foul when it happens to you. Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.



by being vague you may not point at anyone specifically, but by doing so you leave the impression of an overall feeling. How is that concept so hard to grasp????





Actually, I have a lot of friends who are not religious who read the bible. Maybe not necessarily for entertainment value on its own, but to learn. It's actually not uncommon. In fact, many folks I am personally aquainted with left their religious teachings because they did read and research and question. I myself can be included in that category.



I have to ask, how often do you read the Bible? I mean, really read it. Just curious. And be honest.


This is a large reason why when a Christian comes in and starts spouting judgemental crap they are fed by their pastor without taking the time to research on their own (and its very noticable when this is the case) they get criticized and are called sheep. Its not because the person is religious, its because they claim religion without actually taking the time to learn about their religion and why it is that things are taught the way they are. Religion/faith/etc is a huge part of ones life, and helps a person to create life choices. To be ignorant in *why* they do what they do is harmful not only to them, but to those surrounding them. Thats utter ignorance and not to be treated with kid gloves in here.





Eggshell. Duh. I mean, it *is* Easter

Ama, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall with less IQ points. Im not willing to waste any more brain cells trying to even attempt at a rational conversation with you because its obvious you dont know how to have one. It's pretty clear why you get ridiculed and honey, it ain't because you're religious that they are ridiculing.

I hope that was specific enough for you to grasp the context of my post. ;)

Much more importantly (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular), how often do you deliberate on why you read the bible? Reading and believing every word printed in a book doesn't have much merit unless you're going to evaluate the reasoning behind why you're giving so much credit to that literature in the first place.

Are "because I grew up with it", "because my parents told me", "because the church told me", and so on really valid reasons?



Edited, Apr 24th 2011 3:17pm by bsphil

Exactly. Hey, "even a stopped clock", etc.

Not shocked.

Why do you give credence to the words written in the bible?

Not shocked.

Why?

Derp, no, don't be that purposefully dense.


Why does there need to be an origin of the universe? Why can't it be infinite? Why can't the universe be self-evident if your god can? Why does the lack of understanding of a particular scientific topic necessitate a god be put in place as the answer?



Edited, Apr 24th 2011 5:04pm by bsphil

I have to ask, why is believing in God more logical than the ability for science to say "We don't have the answer yet."? Science is still brand new and we learn new things every day. Wouldnt it be more logical to acknowledge that we don't have the answers because we're still seeking, and will never stop?

In all seriousness, why is it that you feel that believing in a religion for a NOW answer (that also cannot be proven yet) is more logical than accepting that we as humanity do not yet know enough to provide one that would hold water?

And this has me scratching my head:



To say that science is less logical than religion... I just don't even know how to touch that one. Besides, who says you cannot follow both? Again its the US Vs. Them mentality and it doesnt have to be that way. Science and faith are not exclusive.

Looks like Ive been out of the loop for a long time. I have ground to catch up on, it seems

Sooo, kind of like Varus, only Alma really believes everything he says and isnt just spouting off for shock value?


That's really scary.



Also, I had no clue Alma was a guy. Nad had to fill me in on that.

1. I stated that was ONE reason.

2. This goes back to the argument of beliefs. You have a set of beliefs that satisfies your interests/questions/thoughts and I have a set of beliefs that satisfies mine. Your answers or possible answers do not satisfy me.



Whichever means that there once was nothing and then under some circumstances, something happened. Look, we've had this argument before. People have sourced "particles that come from nothing" and even in their source it states there must be certain conditions. There is no way around it. Something had to come from nothing, period. If you don't want to accept it, fine that's you, just don't come attacking me like I'm saying something wrong.



Read above. At the end of the day, something came from nothing. I've been arguing since day one that science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. So, no matter what *new* discovery science has come up with, it will not have a *true* beginning. So, while I don't necessarily deny scientific advancements, the beginning will always be God. Everything in the middle, I'll leave to the scientists to find out.



Read above. (my favorite phrase) If you have been paying attention, you would notice that I've been saying that they don't have to be mutually exclusive.



You're so full of BS. People grilling me questions on why I believe what I believe instead of just accepting it and moving on is creating the "US Vs. Them mentality". You don't see me asking anyone why they DON'T believe in religion. What you are doing is accusing me of creating this mentality by simply defending myself. I was ASKED why I do what I do and I answered it. If you don't want the truth, then don't ask me. I didn't come here saying that religion is more logical than "we don't know yet, but I'm sure there's an answer that doesn't involve something coming from nothing".

You're going wrong by assuming something had to come from nothing. That's where you're saying something wrong.


In the beginning there was a singularity. Due to quantum fluctuations within this singularity it started to expand. As it expanded space expanded with it and entropy began to take effect. Entropy is what makes the arrow of time flow forwards. This is why time began when expansion started.

There's a lot of information about this now. Continually saying "something can't come from nothing" is an argument from ignorance, when the only person saying there was nothing is you. The only thing that had to come from nothing, was your notion of a supreme being. Why is it okay for that being to come from nothing?

Edited, Apr 24th 2011 8:30pm by Nilatai

Nope! You defended yourself by using this mentality. Im just pointing it out in case you were ignorant on how you come across to others. Kind of like how we originally started this whole discussion ;)