Interesting debate on existance of god, worth a read 2
- Thread starter RPGlover12
- Start date
- Status
sytaylor
Sy
you dont have paintings of a guy, phisical and social evidence, and an entire new denomation of church created by a ficticious character... that stuff is at least slightly more concrete because we still feel the effects of those decisions today, adam and eve as real as harry potter
and sorry to hear about the death of the family, my condolences
and sorry to hear about the death of the family, my condolences
sytaylor
Sy
"work together in such perfect harmony."
sums up what you were trying to say i believe rpg... and all i can say is, the human is FAR from perfect... sure its good and sure it works but that does not incite design anymore than someone having blonde hair incites they are better than someone with brown... if you read earlier in this topic sk8bloke offers some very good human weaknesses, i suggest you track it down, earth is not perfect because it works!!
sums up what you were trying to say i believe rpg... and all i can say is, the human is FAR from perfect... sure its good and sure it works but that does not incite design anymore than someone having blonde hair incites they are better than someone with brown... if you read earlier in this topic sk8bloke offers some very good human weaknesses, i suggest you track it down, earth is not perfect because it works!!
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Well said, you seem to be quite a respectable person RPGlover12. Thats what I like about muslims is they will actualy do the research or at least hear you out before ignoring and dismissing something like the christians do. (a side note I also like the way that muslims view many holidays, or as the priest told me, hollow days 
) Looking for the truth, always a good thing. Now, there are many things I would otherwise agree with what you are saying, however there are still counter arguments which in my view nullify the majority of them.
In your first post, there seems only one necessary argument. You mentioned that even science tends to refer to one being, (dubbed mother nature in example) however it does not. It refers to the development that occured over millions of years with millions of different animals/beings passing on their individual new developments to the next generation, be them good or bad, with usualy only the good developments surviving. This continuing event, which will never cease until life as we know it does, is what is being refered.
Now your second post, lets take things one at a time:
1. Again mentioned several times already: Where did god come from? If the universe wasnt an accident, then was god the accident?
2. Correct, thus far everything has depended on its creator to keep it in balance. Computers are a perfect example of this, without somebody keeping them maintained, they will eventualy stop working. However, we are infinitely times more complex than computers, for example, your parents created you right? Well, in your early stages you did depend on them, but eventualy you grew out of those dependencies, and developed your own abilities to keep yourself alive (or at least we hope). Nobody is to say that eventualy we can't develop computers that fully maintain themselves, even though as of now they are pretty damn simple devices which don't do anything on their own. They are still in the very early stages (only 30 years of existance so far). (remember what I said about going back 200 years and asking how man will fly, same concept)
3. Not sure what to say here, I dont know much about thermodynamics.
4. This can be argued both ways, ties into #1 quite a bit.
5. The scientific laws are ever changing as we understand more Like for example "What goes up MUST come down". Here in the space age, that theory has been disproven. I have a dish in my back yard aimed at the sky, its gotta be getting that signal from something that refuses to fall. Living tissue could eventualy be intentionaly fabricated, but currently its way beyond our technology. Right now you could extract all of the carbon and protein atoms from any given life form, and it would be non living. Whose to say that if you put them back right where you found them (or rebuild it) then it won't live again? History has shown anything can happen, no matter how bad the odds. There is always that one time when things just fit in perfectly.
6. Until we figure out what the primordial soup consists of, we won't know. I sure don't see religion explaining it. How does man copy himself?
7. Evolution This argument is against the whole thing, not just part of it. This one doesn't realy belong here.
8. The earth is pretty damn big. Around a decade ago, there was an archaelogical dig off of the pacific coast where a drill went about 2 miles beneath the ocean floor, during just that one dig, there were several new fossils discovered of previously unseen animal species, which bore resemblence to already known ones. That is just a fraction of whats beneath the surface, in 100 years we havent even begun to scratch for whats realy down there. We possibly haven't even seen everything that still lives today, nobody has seen how far deep the ocean floor even goes, let alone whats buried underneath it.
9. I would argue that evolution does not require changes to be gradual, but I am not an expert. That said, my only argument here is that evolution isn't fully proven yet. Even though its not fully proven, its very concrete thus far. Eventualy as more is understood, this will more than likely be fully explainable. Bear in mind we are a lot further than we were 200 years ago, how far will we be in 200 years from now as more discoveries are made?
10. More research needs to be done to find out how meiosis first came about. That ties into finding out what the primordial soup consisted of. As for the sexual vs asexual reproduction, asexualy reproducing organisms don't invoke much change in their offspring. Since sexualy reproducing life forms share and discard different changes, they have the best chance at inheriting an innovative trait which gives them an advantage that other life forms don't have. Easily compared to modern days. Which company better stands out in capitalism? The one who produces pretty much the same old stuff over and over again, or the company that constantly innovates and creates new and origional products?
11. Again, evolution. One day an organism could have developed the ability to thrive off light energy from sitting still in a god spot. Through many generations it became the plant.
12. This one doesn't need an explanation that I haven't already said once.
13. tsk tsk tsk...big flaw here computer software (.... nay ... emulators ) more than often begin in incomplete beta stages. With each release more and more features are added until it does what the author intended it to do (where it may stand one day). But yet still the author periodicaly decides that he wants to add more stuff, and fix more flaws, because either he is not satisfied with his work, or a competing work is doing a better job. He adds more stuff to his software continuously (evolution) until competing software totaly outdoes his and he ultimately discontinues it, or motivation to continue it is lost (natural selection).
An organism (such as an eye) may start as the simple ability to sense photons, because when photons are around, food might also be around. Eventualy over time that ability to sense photons becomes more complex.
14. I am not sure how this argues against evolution, if anything it shows that life forms do change. Perhapse its just more practical to start as a pupa and end up as a butterfly, so the species survived that way, just as its more practical for a mother to have a baby in her womb than a full grown person.
15. Ill tell you what, go ask the CIA if you can have a sample of their best encrypted signal, and tell me how easily you can decipher it. I promise you that it will take a lifetime of work. Nevertheless its basicaly a simple mechanical structure right? Its only been in development for about 100 years or so. Evolution has been in development for aeons.
16. Obviously god is too complex for us to understand, so who designed god? Again, ties into #1
) Looking for the truth, always a good thing. Now, there are many things I would otherwise agree with what you are saying, however there are still counter arguments which in my view nullify the majority of them.In your first post, there seems only one necessary argument. You mentioned that even science tends to refer to one being, (dubbed mother nature in example) however it does not. It refers to the development that occured over millions of years with millions of different animals/beings passing on their individual new developments to the next generation, be them good or bad, with usualy only the good developments surviving. This continuing event, which will never cease until life as we know it does, is what is being refered.
Now your second post, lets take things one at a time:
1. Again mentioned several times already: Where did god come from? If the universe wasnt an accident, then was god the accident?
2. Correct, thus far everything has depended on its creator to keep it in balance. Computers are a perfect example of this, without somebody keeping them maintained, they will eventualy stop working. However, we are infinitely times more complex than computers, for example, your parents created you right? Well, in your early stages you did depend on them, but eventualy you grew out of those dependencies, and developed your own abilities to keep yourself alive (or at least we hope
). Nobody is to say that eventualy we can't develop computers that fully maintain themselves, even though as of now they are pretty damn simple devices which don't do anything on their own. They are still in the very early stages (only 30 years of existance so far). (remember what I said about going back 200 years and asking how man will fly, same concept)3. Not sure what to say here, I dont know much about thermodynamics.
4. This can be argued both ways, ties into #1 quite a bit.
5. The scientific laws are ever changing as we understand more
Like for example "What goes up MUST come down". Here in the space age, that theory has been disproven. I have a dish in my back yard aimed at the sky, its gotta be getting that signal from something that refuses to fall. Living tissue could eventualy be intentionaly fabricated, but currently its way beyond our technology. Right now you could extract all of the carbon and protein atoms from any given life form, and it would be non living. Whose to say that if you put them back right where you found them (or rebuild it) then it won't live again? History has shown anything can happen, no matter how bad the odds. There is always that one time when things just fit in perfectly.6. Until we figure out what the primordial soup consists of, we won't know. I sure don't see religion explaining it. How does man copy himself?
7. Evolution
This argument is against the whole thing, not just part of it. This one doesn't realy belong here.8. The earth is pretty damn big. Around a decade ago, there was an archaelogical dig off of the pacific coast where a drill went about 2 miles beneath the ocean floor, during just that one dig, there were several new fossils discovered of previously unseen animal species, which bore resemblence to already known ones. That is just a fraction of whats beneath the surface, in 100 years we havent even begun to scratch for whats realy down there. We possibly haven't even seen everything that still lives today, nobody has seen how far deep the ocean floor even goes, let alone whats buried underneath it.
9. I would argue that evolution does not require changes to be gradual, but I am not an expert. That said, my only argument here is that evolution isn't fully proven yet. Even though its not fully proven, its very concrete thus far. Eventualy as more is understood, this will more than likely be fully explainable. Bear in mind we are a lot further than we were 200 years ago, how far will we be in 200 years from now as more discoveries are made?
10. More research needs to be done to find out how meiosis first came about. That ties into finding out what the primordial soup consisted of. As for the sexual vs asexual reproduction, asexualy reproducing organisms don't invoke much change in their offspring. Since sexualy reproducing life forms share and discard different changes, they have the best chance at inheriting an innovative trait which gives them an advantage that other life forms don't have. Easily compared to modern days. Which company better stands out in capitalism? The one who produces pretty much the same old stuff over and over again, or the company that constantly innovates and creates new and origional products?
11. Again, evolution. One day an organism could have developed the ability to thrive off light energy from sitting still in a god spot. Through many generations it became the plant.
12. This one doesn't need an explanation that I haven't already said once.
13. tsk tsk tsk...big flaw here
computer software (.... nay ... emulators ) more than often begin in incomplete beta stages. With each release more and more features are added until it does what the author intended it to do (where it may stand one day). But yet still the author periodicaly decides that he wants to add more stuff, and fix more flaws, because either he is not satisfied with his work, or a competing work is doing a better job. He adds more stuff to his software continuously (evolution) until competing software totaly outdoes his and he ultimately discontinues it, or motivation to continue it is lost (natural selection).An organism (such as an eye) may start as the simple ability to sense photons, because when photons are around, food might also be around. Eventualy over time that ability to sense photons becomes more complex.
14. I am not sure how this argues against evolution, if anything it shows that life forms do change. Perhapse its just more practical to start as a pupa and end up as a butterfly, so the species survived that way, just as its more practical for a mother to have a baby in her womb than a full grown person.
15. Ill tell you what, go ask the CIA if you can have a sample of their best encrypted signal, and tell me how easily you can decipher it. I promise you that it will take a lifetime of work. Nevertheless its basicaly a simple mechanical structure right? Its only been in development for about 100 years or so. Evolution has been in development for aeons.
16. Obviously god is too complex for us to understand, so who designed god? Again, ties into #1
Last edited:
sk8bloke22
roll for life
omg, that is 100% copied and pasted information RPGlover, as when i went through thermodynamics ages ago, the only one who said anything was medical guy, at least state the site u r getting ur information. the original Part 1 of this thread had this debate going on for a while, particularly with medical guy who actually new a lot about the subject (probably way more than me, but i was able to just about keep a debate going) and u said nothing then about thermodynamics, all of a sudden u r bringing this stuff up randomaly. at least provide the name of the site, instead of claiming its ur own writing. the stuff i got my stuff from was http://www.geocities.com/evoatheism <-- theres one massive debate in there between two real famous scientists, one an evolutionist, the other a creationist. theres no real conclusion, the 2nd Law is a real controversial one...buuutt evolution is pretty much widely accepted as fact now, even by religious people who hav ironically changed their views to believe that god created the foundations to work, blah, blah.
ok from that site mentioned:
http://www.geocities.com/evoatheism/main.html
"What does this have to do with evolution? <-- Reffering to 2nd Law
Evolution, as we all know, involves the very gradual change of organisms over long periods of geologic time. Very often, those changes are from simple to complex. Certainly, a human is more ordered (has less entropy) than a single celled bacteria. That would mean that evolution from basic cells to modern animals would decrease the entropy of the universe, and violate the second law, correct? No. Actually, its quite the opposite. The more complex a system is, the more entropy it has. Imagine a box. It doesn't matter what kind of box. Just imagine a box. Imagine that there is a single hydrogen atom bouncing around inside of that box. It seems neat and tidy, right? Most people imagine this as a box with a little red or blue ball bouncing around inside of it. Now imagine a box with a hundred of those balls bouncing around inside of it. Imagine red blue and green balls. Imagine different sized balls. Imagine ten thousand different balls bouncing around inside at incredible speeds. The system is more complex now because of all of the features we've added, and it's become much more disordered, hasn't it?
A good way to think of the amount of entropy in a system is how many states are there that the system could be in that have the overall same appearance. Think about the box again. Imagine it with one atom bouncing around again. Compare two states that the system of the box could be in: one where the ball is all the way on the left side of the box, and another where the ball is all the way on the right side of the box. You can easily distinguish the two, right? You can do the same with the atom being at the top of the box, at the bottom, etc., and none of them really look the same, do they? Let's go back to our box with the thousands of balls. Picture the different states that the box might be in. Because all of these balls are all over the place and the box is jam packed, all of these states have the same overall appearance. For this reason, water has extremely high amounts of entropy. Imagine a glass of clear water with nothing else in it. Just water. Imagine stirring the water now. After the water slows down, what does it look like? It doesn't look any different at all, does it? Even though the water molecules inside that glass are in completely different positions due to your stirring, it still has the same overall appearance. Organisms are the same way.
Imagine a very simple cell with nothing but a nucleus. Imagine the different states it might be in (I would probably picture the nucleus in different places). Imagine the nucleus on the left side of the cell. Now imagine it on the right. You can tell the difference, right? These two states don't have the same overall appearance. Now imagine trillions of cells all mangled around. Imagine all the different positions these cells might have. They all have the same overall appearance, don't they? That's because more complex systems have higher entropy. This is well known in science. The mistake that creationists make when they believe that evolution violates the second law is that they think that simple to complex means disordered to ordered. As I've shown, this is not nearly the case. More ordered most certainly does not mean more complex.
After hearing this explanation, some creationists probe further by saying that the assembly of non living material into life violates the second law. Again, this is not true, but for a different reason than discussed above. The random scattering of nucleotides, DNA, RNA and so on all mangled around forming into a neat little cell does go from disordered to ordered. What creationists do not take into account here is that the earth is not a closed system. These things can happen because the earth has the sun as an energy source. The sun and lightning heating the ocean would provoke chemical reactions among all of those organic compounds that would tend not to happen without them, just like the second law says. Imagine, for example, a park. Through the middle of the park is a stone wall. Scattered in a disordered fashion across the ground on the west side of the wall are many, many leaves. Imagine that wind blows these leaves east. All of the leaves collect on the walls. These collections of leaves are more ordered than the state that the leaves were in before the wind blew. Again, this can happen because earth is an open system. The wind is a result of differences in air pressure, which is a result of the unequal heating of the earth by the sun. Had the earth been a closed system, there would be no sun, therefore no wind, and the leaves would have just sat there. It's the same way with organisms.
Now, even if simple to complex did mean disordered to ordered, the usage of food energy, as said before, far outweighs any decrease in entropy made by bodily functions. For you to clean your room, you use that food energy. For organelles inside cells to get rid of waste unwanted substances, energy is used. That energy is either derived from plants, which get their energy from the sun by photosynthesis, or by photosynthesis carried out by the cell itself (or, in rare cases chemosynthesis), and is expelled as heat, increasing the universe's entropy. True: the cell may be cleaner and more ordered, but outside the cell there is more heat and therefore more entropy. The cell is an open system, just like the earth." <-- damn important. the earth is an open system, which would make the big bang thoery possible (still, not definite, it really is just a theory). no-one knows how a close system is created.....its the exact same question as if there is a god, who created Him. if something like all of space, and the universe is a closed system, then one would presume it to be an infinite entity. also the more u read on evolution (and look at BOTH sides)m u realise how both creationalists and evolutionists hav their own little examples of why the other doesnt work.
ok from that site mentioned:
http://www.geocities.com/evoatheism/main.html
"What does this have to do with evolution? <-- Reffering to 2nd Law
Evolution, as we all know, involves the very gradual change of organisms over long periods of geologic time. Very often, those changes are from simple to complex. Certainly, a human is more ordered (has less entropy) than a single celled bacteria. That would mean that evolution from basic cells to modern animals would decrease the entropy of the universe, and violate the second law, correct? No. Actually, its quite the opposite. The more complex a system is, the more entropy it has. Imagine a box. It doesn't matter what kind of box. Just imagine a box. Imagine that there is a single hydrogen atom bouncing around inside of that box. It seems neat and tidy, right? Most people imagine this as a box with a little red or blue ball bouncing around inside of it. Now imagine a box with a hundred of those balls bouncing around inside of it. Imagine red blue and green balls. Imagine different sized balls. Imagine ten thousand different balls bouncing around inside at incredible speeds. The system is more complex now because of all of the features we've added, and it's become much more disordered, hasn't it?
A good way to think of the amount of entropy in a system is how many states are there that the system could be in that have the overall same appearance. Think about the box again. Imagine it with one atom bouncing around again. Compare two states that the system of the box could be in: one where the ball is all the way on the left side of the box, and another where the ball is all the way on the right side of the box. You can easily distinguish the two, right? You can do the same with the atom being at the top of the box, at the bottom, etc., and none of them really look the same, do they? Let's go back to our box with the thousands of balls. Picture the different states that the box might be in. Because all of these balls are all over the place and the box is jam packed, all of these states have the same overall appearance. For this reason, water has extremely high amounts of entropy. Imagine a glass of clear water with nothing else in it. Just water. Imagine stirring the water now. After the water slows down, what does it look like? It doesn't look any different at all, does it? Even though the water molecules inside that glass are in completely different positions due to your stirring, it still has the same overall appearance. Organisms are the same way.
Imagine a very simple cell with nothing but a nucleus. Imagine the different states it might be in (I would probably picture the nucleus in different places). Imagine the nucleus on the left side of the cell. Now imagine it on the right. You can tell the difference, right? These two states don't have the same overall appearance. Now imagine trillions of cells all mangled around. Imagine all the different positions these cells might have. They all have the same overall appearance, don't they? That's because more complex systems have higher entropy. This is well known in science. The mistake that creationists make when they believe that evolution violates the second law is that they think that simple to complex means disordered to ordered. As I've shown, this is not nearly the case. More ordered most certainly does not mean more complex.
After hearing this explanation, some creationists probe further by saying that the assembly of non living material into life violates the second law. Again, this is not true, but for a different reason than discussed above. The random scattering of nucleotides, DNA, RNA and so on all mangled around forming into a neat little cell does go from disordered to ordered. What creationists do not take into account here is that the earth is not a closed system. These things can happen because the earth has the sun as an energy source. The sun and lightning heating the ocean would provoke chemical reactions among all of those organic compounds that would tend not to happen without them, just like the second law says. Imagine, for example, a park. Through the middle of the park is a stone wall. Scattered in a disordered fashion across the ground on the west side of the wall are many, many leaves. Imagine that wind blows these leaves east. All of the leaves collect on the walls. These collections of leaves are more ordered than the state that the leaves were in before the wind blew. Again, this can happen because earth is an open system. The wind is a result of differences in air pressure, which is a result of the unequal heating of the earth by the sun. Had the earth been a closed system, there would be no sun, therefore no wind, and the leaves would have just sat there. It's the same way with organisms.
Now, even if simple to complex did mean disordered to ordered, the usage of food energy, as said before, far outweighs any decrease in entropy made by bodily functions. For you to clean your room, you use that food energy. For organelles inside cells to get rid of waste unwanted substances, energy is used. That energy is either derived from plants, which get their energy from the sun by photosynthesis, or by photosynthesis carried out by the cell itself (or, in rare cases chemosynthesis), and is expelled as heat, increasing the universe's entropy. True: the cell may be cleaner and more ordered, but outside the cell there is more heat and therefore more entropy. The cell is an open system, just like the earth." <-- damn important. the earth is an open system, which would make the big bang thoery possible (still, not definite, it really is just a theory). no-one knows how a close system is created.....its the exact same question as if there is a god, who created Him. if something like all of space, and the universe is a closed system, then one would presume it to be an infinite entity. also the more u read on evolution (and look at BOTH sides)m u realise how both creationalists and evolutionists hav their own little examples of why the other doesnt work.
Last edited:
sk8bloke22
roll for life
dont, its going nowhere, we're back to the stage we were in the original 'God' thread. still, alphawalf ur responses are seemingly good...that must hav taken u time to write.
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
It did, im just surprised I can hold up these arguments against some religious people who have been in college, I've yet to start
The main problem most religious groups have is they refuse to believe that any part of their texts are wrong (mormons are a perfect example of this). Hence galileo being put into perminant house arrest. Things generaly start small and simple, and eventualy grow large and complex. I dont understand why most religions insist things are set one way and stay that way forever.
The main problem most religious groups have is they refuse to believe that any part of their texts are wrong (mormons are a perfect example of this). Hence galileo being put into perminant house arrest. Things generaly start small and simple, and eventualy grow large and complex. I dont understand why most religions insist things are set one way and stay that way forever.
OP
RPGlover12
New member
- Thread Starter
- #349
who said that i said that i said i found some articles and i copied if i didn't write it then i apologize that i forgot writing and here is the site that i got it from www.beconvinced.com and sultan.comsk8bloke22 said:
sk8bloke22
roll for life
AlphaWolf said:
thats because there are based on a 'doctrine of thought'. any religion, ideology or following is. when they are proved wrong, or ppl see things differently, u get clashes and divisions between those who believe the orthodox way, and those who believe in something that needs changing. for instance, orthodox christianity caused much problems in England centries ago as it was all in Latin, so it was simplified and translated, which eventually became the Protestant religion. now theres a huge divide between Christians and Protestants (/me points to Northern Ireland conflict).
very few religions are truly open minded. budhism, i think, is one of the more philisophical religions which is much less dogmatic than most religions, similar anarchism doesnt really hav any main objectives other than a removal of state and 'generalised authority, it focuses much more on the philosophy of life, than dictating other peoples lives, and telling others how to lead ur life 'correctly'.
OP
RPGlover12
New member
- Thread Starter
- #351
hey sk8bloke or any other jew on this board if u think that the messiah didn't show up then tell u something its wrong i found an article about that and i found that it shows 100% that the awaiting messiah that jewish wait for was mohamed not jesus and here is the link for that site
the messiah is Mohamed
the messiah is Mohamed
sk8bloke22
roll for life
and that proves everything. riiiight.... :/
i dont actually believe in my religion at all, its all just a utopia wishing for the perfect person to come. the messiah is the person who rebuilds the new temple, yada, yada, so how can mohammed be the messiah. wateva each religion thinks its right. wats the point arguing its all bullcrap. dont u see that the article is just the tiniest bit biasest, lol.
i dont actually believe in my religion at all, its all just a utopia wishing for the perfect person to come. the messiah is the person who rebuilds the new temple, yada, yada, so how can mohammed be the messiah. wateva each religion thinks its right. wats the point arguing its all bullcrap. dont u see that the article is just the tiniest bit biasest, lol.
DuDe
Emu64 Staff
Uhmmm, yeah, sure it does. Gimme half an hour, and I`ll write a little article that prooves that I am the friggin messiah.
All that article that you so humbly provided up there, forgets one little thing : the messiah is suppose to be a member of king David`s family. Well, Muhammad wasn`t a member of David`s family, because he wasn`t even a jew. So all of the 3000 words of that nice little article can be summarized as just one: bullshit.
All that article that you so humbly provided up there, forgets one little thing : the messiah is suppose to be a member of king David`s family. Well, Muhammad wasn`t a member of David`s family, because he wasn`t even a jew. So all of the 3000 words of that nice little article can be summarized as just one: bullshit.
OP
RPGlover12
New member
- Thread Starter
- #354
also jewish guys i found a good site for judaisim its called www.jews-for-allah.com its a great site
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
RPGlover12: I guess my origional oppinion of you was off. You can't just use other peoples arguments.
I guess ill just slap a big fat never mind on this one.
EDIT:
Actualy to tell the truth I was bored off my ass the last few weeks, talking to anybody. I normaly spend most of my day doing physical activities if im not on the computer (yes either way I still dont have a life, but I think thats a bit overrated anyways )
I havent realy been able to do neither of which. I've been recovering from two surgeries (still am), and my favorite pc is out of commision. Taking away a mans two favorite past times does odd things, I guess thats why I participated with this thread to begin with. :sleepy:
I guess ill just slap a big fat never mind on this one.
EDIT:
Actualy to tell the truth I was bored off my ass the last few weeks, talking to anybody. I normaly spend most of my day doing physical activities if im not on the computer (yes either way I still dont have a life, but I think thats a bit overrated anyways
)I havent realy been able to do neither of which. I've been recovering from two surgeries (still am), and my favorite pc is out of commision. Taking away a mans two favorite past times does odd things, I guess thats why I participated with this thread to begin with. :sleepy:
Last edited:
OP
RPGlover12
New member
- Thread Starter
- #356
what oppinion i just try to guide them to islam . is that wrong to guide them to the truth ??? i just try to prove to them that the awaiting messiah is mohamed i dont break faith in thier religionAlphaWolf said:
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Go to #emulation64 on efnet, ask anybody there to read my last posts, they will all agree that I wasnt myself the last week. I wonder how long morphine lasts? The nurse said I was pumped full of it and it still didnt get rid of this post op headache I had, so they had to add more or something
OP
RPGlover12
New member
- Thread Starter
- #359
why
anyway here are more sites that preaches the prophiecy of mohammad
http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_vision.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_vision1.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_42.htm
i think these are enough sites to prove prophiecy but if u want more i will get u more
anyway here are more sites that preaches the prophiecy of mohammad
http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_vision.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_vision1.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_42.htm
i think these are enough sites to prove prophiecy but if u want more i will get u more
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
RPGlover12: Well think of it like this. I can tell you that tommorow I am going to raise a leigion of hell on the planet and only those who follow me will survive. I can present certain facts or other BS which looks convincingly true, but does that make it true? Certainly not. Though everybody who follows me in the meanwhile gives me a lot of power to control others.
Honestly I believe that religion started out as a tool for propaganda. Think about it, bin ladin doesn't get all of his power from money, much of it comes from the religious beliefs that he spreads to everybody who follows him. He somehow manages to convince people that Allah wants them to kill as many americans as they possibly can during their lifetime. The more they kill, the better of a chance they stand at getting to shanalah (heaven) after they die. If you can honestly convince somebody that by doing certain things before their death, they will be rewarded eternaly, which is probably the greatest reason to do anything, you can bet your ass they will do it.
Propaganda helps groups survive, in fact the concept of evolution would easily explain why religions became dominant. People who just stayed in clans, or worse yet, were lone nomads, would easily be swept away from their land and either die from starvation or be killed by those who can get multiple families to organize into one.
Religion is one of the old ways of organizing people. Now we have a new way, its called democracy, and though sure it may have its flaws, its not heavily flawed like religion which is based on "facts" that are used to motivate people. Instead its based on the idea of individual liberties, which unlike facts have no way of being disproven. That said, you can't just say "Shut up, my religion isn't a lie, its fact.", well, wake up and smell the cofee pal, there are thousands of other religions out there that have conflicting ideas and say the same thing. Obviously they can't all be right.
Democracy has just one enemy, despotism in its various forms. Here is the definition of a despot:
1. A ruler with absolute power.
2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.
Obviously you cant be a despot if you belive in individual liberties, because then everybody should have just as much power as you, and you can't be absolute. Some people have the ability to manipulate the hell out of others, and religion is their tool.
Now go read your bible, qur'an, torah, or what have you, and look near the beginning at when the first prophecies came about. The 'god' figure was always talking to just one person. Why not anybody else? Well this person, in talking to god, was able to move millions of people to fight wars and establish his empire that he wanted. He easily moved them because he got them to believe that if they didn't do what he told them to do, they would suffer eternaly after they die, and those who followed his every command would be blessed. Now why can't we all talk to god and be absolutely certain of this? Well, see the problem is if you see or hear him he has so much power that you will die, but I can talk to him without dieing because im the special prophet, and he says go kill who I say to go kill. The despot wins here. Now to ensure that his family line will be the ones in charge for as long as possible (his natural desire to keep his gene strongest), he says that a prophet will come and confirm all of this, so you better follow these beliefs from now til an unspecified date when the world is supposed to end (possibly eternity).
Now you might be sitting here reading this thinking "nah this isn't my god, I know he is real, I felt him one time", well, its all about the chemicals baby.
http://www.doitnow.org/pages/529.html
Thats a short page which explains what ketamine is. Also note that your brain has a membrane which produces ketamine naturaly as a last resort to slow your body down to conserve what resources it has during oxygen deprevation (drowning, asphyxiation, etc). That among many other chemicals can cause things like this to happen. Theres a chance that I can make you see heaven without dieing if I were to strangle you for a few seconds. You would honestly believe you were there while it was happening too. How do I know that? Well im certainly not a prophet, your guess is as good as mine.
Another thing you might be thinking is "well, then how would the first 'despot' as you call it get people to believe in such crazy things?" Well I don't know, how does bin ladin convince his followers that if they kill americans they go to heaven? Some people are just stupid and there does happen to be strength in numbers, be you stupid or not. But as natural selection has shown, intelligence eventualy overrules brute, this is why man thrives much more than any other species, and also why the US has less population than many other countries in the world, yet we still are the most powerful nation, as well as why democracy, a relatively new concept in comparison, is thriving.
Now heres something else to think about, if your god loves all human beings, then why does he at times command some to kill others?
Remember, I am not necessarily athiest, but I have a pretty good idea that what most of the other religions believe out there is wrong.
Honestly I believe that religion started out as a tool for propaganda. Think about it, bin ladin doesn't get all of his power from money, much of it comes from the religious beliefs that he spreads to everybody who follows him. He somehow manages to convince people that Allah wants them to kill as many americans as they possibly can during their lifetime. The more they kill, the better of a chance they stand at getting to shanalah (heaven) after they die. If you can honestly convince somebody that by doing certain things before their death, they will be rewarded eternaly, which is probably the greatest reason to do anything, you can bet your ass they will do it.
Propaganda helps groups survive, in fact the concept of evolution would easily explain why religions became dominant. People who just stayed in clans, or worse yet, were lone nomads, would easily be swept away from their land and either die from starvation or be killed by those who can get multiple families to organize into one.
Religion is one of the old ways of organizing people. Now we have a new way, its called democracy, and though sure it may have its flaws, its not heavily flawed like religion which is based on "facts" that are used to motivate people. Instead its based on the idea of individual liberties, which unlike facts have no way of being disproven. That said, you can't just say "Shut up, my religion isn't a lie, its fact.", well, wake up and smell the cofee pal, there are thousands of other religions out there that have conflicting ideas and say the same thing. Obviously they can't all be right.
Democracy has just one enemy, despotism in its various forms. Here is the definition of a despot:
1. A ruler with absolute power.
2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.
Obviously you cant be a despot if you belive in individual liberties, because then everybody should have just as much power as you, and you can't be absolute. Some people have the ability to manipulate the hell out of others, and religion is their tool.
Now go read your bible, qur'an, torah, or what have you, and look near the beginning at when the first prophecies came about. The 'god' figure was always talking to just one person. Why not anybody else? Well this person, in talking to god, was able to move millions of people to fight wars and establish his empire that he wanted. He easily moved them because he got them to believe that if they didn't do what he told them to do, they would suffer eternaly after they die, and those who followed his every command would be blessed. Now why can't we all talk to god and be absolutely certain of this? Well, see the problem is if you see or hear him he has so much power that you will die, but I can talk to him without dieing because im the special prophet, and he says go kill who I say to go kill. The despot wins here. Now to ensure that his family line will be the ones in charge for as long as possible (his natural desire to keep his gene strongest), he says that a prophet will come and confirm all of this, so you better follow these beliefs from now til an unspecified date when the world is supposed to end (possibly eternity).
Now you might be sitting here reading this thinking "nah this isn't my god, I know he is real, I felt him one time", well, its all about the chemicals baby.
http://www.doitnow.org/pages/529.html
Thats a short page which explains what ketamine is. Also note that your brain has a membrane which produces ketamine naturaly as a last resort to slow your body down to conserve what resources it has during oxygen deprevation (drowning, asphyxiation, etc). That among many other chemicals can cause things like this to happen. Theres a chance that I can make you see heaven without dieing if I were to strangle you for a few seconds. You would honestly believe you were there while it was happening too. How do I know that? Well im certainly not a prophet, your guess is as good as mine.
Another thing you might be thinking is "well, then how would the first 'despot' as you call it get people to believe in such crazy things?" Well I don't know, how does bin ladin convince his followers that if they kill americans they go to heaven? Some people are just stupid and there does happen to be strength in numbers, be you stupid or not. But as natural selection has shown, intelligence eventualy overrules brute, this is why man thrives much more than any other species, and also why the US has less population than many other countries in the world, yet we still are the most powerful nation, as well as why democracy, a relatively new concept in comparison, is thriving.
Now heres something else to think about, if your god loves all human beings, then why does he at times command some to kill others?
Remember, I am not necessarily athiest, but I have a pretty good idea that what most of the other religions believe out there is wrong.
Last edited:
- Status