Indoctrination is a sad thing, watching you struggle with what you think and what you have been told is true is just sad. Imagine you had not been indoctrinated, that you had never believed in a god, how would you react as an adult learning about religion for the first time?
Hey Dillon, just a quick note. All religion is, is a vehicle 2 get from one place to another. So it"s not really who we are
Some basic fundamentals: God/Love created all of us in His image. This is why we don't feel well when we have anger, jeolousy, hatered, malace etc for others & feel uplifted when we do a good deed for others because we are following our nature.
We R here on earth to GROW in the image of Our Creator/Savior/Love by growing in our love 4 Him, the source of all Love.
That's right, Our Creator/God/Love made us in "His" own image which is Love: patience,humility,compassion, forgiveness 4 others who treat us unjustly, understaning etc.
When we chose to be hateful, malicious, jealous, unjust, selfish, lying, etc. etc. we go against our own nature of how we"re created
Since WE ALL SIN, we have the choice to repent and ask God/Jesus to forgiv & cleanse the harm we did to our soul when we chose to make our heart darkness instead of Light/Love
starcarillo, you're really not helping me here, because one of the points i'm making here is that i don't believe we were created in the image of any objective god. i don't believe in sin, i don't know or claim to know that god is watching or can watch. my only claim is that things don't just happen. if evolution is, in truth, how we got to this point, what mechanism made it occur? What made the big bang bang?
I remember when I was around 4 or 5 yrs old, I would wonder why am I me & not someone else.The idea "me" being created,made me wonder about my Creator
Hav U ever wonered why you're you & not me? ...& what does that mean that you're you, an individual placed in space & time?
That u don't believe in God during this time in ur life just happens 2B where U R right now in thought
The important thing is 2B sincere in discovering who U R & why U R here, or as U would say, "If there is reason."
yeh, atheists have taken a leap of faith, essentially. they "should" believe in only what cannot be proven to be untrue, ie. science but science is not a religion nor is atheism, atheism is a position and science is what we have composed so far through physical observation to represent our existing universe, which is pretty huge and is difficult if not impossible for somebody to memorise or take, but we can use pieces of it for our knowledge or scrutinize it to make sure it is all true
but there are atheists who just dont care about philosophy as well i.e. 2:40 just to revolt or something personal
@ 4:15 things like the bible arent verifiable, this is why the religious faith leap is greater than putting faith in science. also science shows it is "true" so far with things like the computer you are using to read this message, whereas in religion you have faith, you believe that we wont know any physical answers and that an immaterial conscious being is the real answer
2. by my belief, very little is actually verifiable. scientific theory is constantly changing and the scientific method has been in use for roughly 300 years. humans don't know shit, we're a tiny particle of matter floating in something we can't comprehend and the best we can do is lurch towards the answer.
3. he leap of faith to science is just as big, because you're making the leap which puts you in the mindset of believing science to be verifiable.
2. no by your knowledge very little is verifiable. your right though, we know nothing in comparison to everything, but what we are capable of knowing in one lifetime is enough to make anyone feel happy
3. i would consider believing in what has evidence is better than having faith in what does not. if there were evidence for religion the word faith would not exist, it would be true rather than a strong belief. now, the choice depends on the persons knowledge...
you're missing the point i'm trying to make. my beliefs are not verifiable by your standards, but just like the concept of hell means nothing to people who don't consider the concept valid. there's plenty of evidence, just none that you accept. you have faith just as i do, your faith simply lies with mr. dawkins and his comrades rather than a more traditional religious figure. belief is belief, regardless of what that belief manifests itself as. i believe in both science and god.
your point is clear and i have no idea how a person can manage to believe in a physical reality and dismiss it as an illusion at the same time. in order to believe in god which is not physically evident you must believe he exists outside of the material realm, even to have powers that must be obvious. science laws obviously must not apply to this "realm"
yes it is a belief, but how is it physically possible, how is it true that god can exist without placing him in some sort of unknown immaterial world, where is he what does he look like, does he emit light, shoud we call it "it" or he, how could anybody know that he exists, or do you just have faith...is there any evidence?
evidence in hell, something that makes hell evident...what exactly is that. i dont believe in space aliens because there is no evidence for it, why treat god differently?
i don't dismiss reality as an illusion, i don't understand where you're getting these ideas from. god is not a he, why would it be? and yes, yes, all right, i don't have scientiofic evidence of the existence of god, but that's the problem, why is it so impossible that there is nothing beyond science? what proof do you have that there ISN'T a god? have you ever been to another planet? how do you know there isn't anything else out there? just because you don't have proof something exist
doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. you have all your evidence, but man, go back just a few hundred years, and they had their own accepted evidence that the sun travelled around the earth, hay stacks could give birth to mice and vampires rose from the dead. it's fine and good to explain what's going on, the question i have is WHY?
u act as if science is as credible as god or something, science can show things to be true assuming certain things are constant. you belive in god with no evidence, and u try to justify it by saying science does not know everything, its jsut a bit silly.
of course you cant say for sure god doesent exists but neither can u with lepricons, fairies, or invisible aliens. it seems as though these things dont exists and you assume they dont, but u technicaly cant know for sure, yet u take one (god)
we don't need a scientific evidence that god exists, we only need common sense . most of modern physics theories are based upon assumptions and testing and we live by these theories, so why is it so hard to believe the assumption of a creator, though we are a creation? this is tangible and can be tested "if anyone dosnt believe that he exist, just pinch your ass"
Taken for granted that big bang is correct where did the matter and energy that banged came from?
We cant describe what we cant sense true, and if god exists in a different immaterial realm we cant quantify him, that is also true, but we cant prove that such an entity dose not exist also, so this argument is piontless.
answer me a simple question, could there be a creation without a creator?
After that we talk about god. don't argue theacidpulp on his beliefs about god and his features, you don't believe in him, but argue about a creator it will be more productive
@theacidpulp I don't see how you can say science is a leap of faith. What does science say about the origins of life? It says, "We don't know". What does science say regarding what brought about the big bang and what came before it? It says, "We don't know". Where exactly is the leap of faith?
i wouldn't classify myself as belonging solely to any one religion or philosophy. i try to listen to other people's beliefs and take from them what i can use. what i mean to say is that a person's beliefs can not and should not be explained by way of a one-word, soundbite answer. understand?
probly because its upseting how somone can make sense most the time, then fail because they assume there has to be a why. just because your brain evolved to be able to ask why, doesnt mean there has to be one, or that it is reasonable to assume one.
see, but that doesn't make logical sense. if there is no why, then why is there an argument at all? also, why is it reasonable to assume there isn't one? everybody who doesn't come to the conclusion that there isn't a god "fails"? are you retarded? seriously? do you listen to yourself talk? do any of you listen to yourselves talk?
your 1st setence broken down says "see that doesnt make sence, if there is no why to the universe they why is there an argument about it". realize how that doesnt realy fallow? there is an argument because u think there is a why to the universe when there doesnt have to be at all. its reasonable to assume there is no why to the universe because it is all just the property of energy, there is no why involved, do u ask why about gravity? you dint fully read the "fail" sentence, no mention of god.
keep in mind my purpose for these conversations with you is not to necessarily prove your wrong or im right, but just to perhaps learn something form eachother. when i make arguments i may sound dickish but its just because im trying to argue to the point in 500 characters.
dude as long as you are thinking for yourself and asking questions you cannot go wrong to much.
way2jaded1 6 months ago
Indoctrination is a sad thing, watching you struggle with what you think and what you have been told is true is just sad. Imagine you had not been indoctrinated, that you had never believed in a god, how would you react as an adult learning about religion for the first time?
utahjag 11 months ago
Hey Dillon, just a quick note. All religion is, is a vehicle 2 get from one place to another. So it"s not really who we are
Some basic fundamentals: God/Love created all of us in His image. This is why we don't feel well when we have anger, jeolousy, hatered, malace etc for others & feel uplifted when we do a good deed for others because we are following our nature.
We R here on earth to GROW in the image of Our Creator/Savior/Love by growing in our love 4 Him, the source of all Love.
starcarrillo 2 years ago
starcarrillo,
what do you mean by God/Love created all of us in His image?
can you elaborate on this please
Mohannad192 2 years ago
That's right, Our Creator/God/Love made us in "His" own image which is Love: patience,humility,compassion, forgiveness 4 others who treat us unjustly, understaning etc.
When we chose to be hateful, malicious, jealous, unjust, selfish, lying, etc. etc. we go against our own nature of how we"re created
Since WE ALL SIN, we have the choice to repent and ask God/Jesus to forgiv & cleanse the harm we did to our soul when we chose to make our heart darkness instead of Light/Love
Make sense?
starcarrillo 2 years ago
not really actually , but thats not a problem i think, sorry to bother you
Mohannad192 2 years ago
starcarillo, you're really not helping me here, because one of the points i'm making here is that i don't believe we were created in the image of any objective god. i don't believe in sin, i don't know or claim to know that god is watching or can watch. my only claim is that things don't just happen. if evolution is, in truth, how we got to this point, what mechanism made it occur? What made the big bang bang?
theacidpulp 2 years ago
I remember when I was around 4 or 5 yrs old, I would wonder why am I me & not someone else.The idea "me" being created,made me wonder about my Creator
Hav U ever wonered why you're you & not me? ...& what does that mean that you're you, an individual placed in space & time?
That u don't believe in God during this time in ur life just happens 2B where U R right now in thought
The important thing is 2B sincere in discovering who U R & why U R here, or as U would say, "If there is reason."
starcarrillo 2 years ago
yeh, atheists have taken a leap of faith, essentially. they "should" believe in only what cannot be proven to be untrue, ie. science but science is not a religion nor is atheism, atheism is a position and science is what we have composed so far through physical observation to represent our existing universe, which is pretty huge and is difficult if not impossible for somebody to memorise or take, but we can use pieces of it for our knowledge or scrutinize it to make sure it is all true
3wrongnotes 2 years ago
but there are atheists who just dont care about philosophy as well i.e. 2:40 just to revolt or something personal
@ 4:15 things like the bible arent verifiable, this is why the religious faith leap is greater than putting faith in science. also science shows it is "true" so far with things like the computer you are using to read this message, whereas in religion you have faith, you believe that we wont know any physical answers and that an immaterial conscious being is the real answer
3wrongnotes 2 years ago
1. a leap of faith is a leap of faith
2. by my belief, very little is actually verifiable. scientific theory is constantly changing and the scientific method has been in use for roughly 300 years. humans don't know shit, we're a tiny particle of matter floating in something we can't comprehend and the best we can do is lurch towards the answer.
3. he leap of faith to science is just as big, because you're making the leap which puts you in the mindset of believing science to be verifiable.
theacidpulp 2 years ago
2. no by your knowledge very little is verifiable. your right though, we know nothing in comparison to everything, but what we are capable of knowing in one lifetime is enough to make anyone feel happy
3. i would consider believing in what has evidence is better than having faith in what does not. if there were evidence for religion the word faith would not exist, it would be true rather than a strong belief. now, the choice depends on the persons knowledge...
i trust only what can be real
3wrongnotes 2 years ago
you're missing the point i'm trying to make. my beliefs are not verifiable by your standards, but just like the concept of hell means nothing to people who don't consider the concept valid. there's plenty of evidence, just none that you accept. you have faith just as i do, your faith simply lies with mr. dawkins and his comrades rather than a more traditional religious figure. belief is belief, regardless of what that belief manifests itself as. i believe in both science and god.
theacidpulp 2 years ago
your point is clear and i have no idea how a person can manage to believe in a physical reality and dismiss it as an illusion at the same time. in order to believe in god which is not physically evident you must believe he exists outside of the material realm, even to have powers that must be obvious. science laws obviously must not apply to this "realm"
3wrongnotes 2 years ago
yes it is a belief, but how is it physically possible, how is it true that god can exist without placing him in some sort of unknown immaterial world, where is he what does he look like, does he emit light, shoud we call it "it" or he, how could anybody know that he exists, or do you just have faith...is there any evidence?
evidence in hell, something that makes hell evident...what exactly is that. i dont believe in space aliens because there is no evidence for it, why treat god differently?
3wrongnotes 2 years ago
i don't dismiss reality as an illusion, i don't understand where you're getting these ideas from. god is not a he, why would it be? and yes, yes, all right, i don't have scientiofic evidence of the existence of god, but that's the problem, why is it so impossible that there is nothing beyond science? what proof do you have that there ISN'T a god? have you ever been to another planet? how do you know there isn't anything else out there? just because you don't have proof something exist
theacidpulp 2 years ago
doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. you have all your evidence, but man, go back just a few hundred years, and they had their own accepted evidence that the sun travelled around the earth, hay stacks could give birth to mice and vampires rose from the dead. it's fine and good to explain what's going on, the question i have is WHY?
theacidpulp 2 years ago
u act as if science is as credible as god or something, science can show things to be true assuming certain things are constant. you belive in god with no evidence, and u try to justify it by saying science does not know everything, its jsut a bit silly.
of course you cant say for sure god doesent exists but neither can u with lepricons, fairies, or invisible aliens. it seems as though these things dont exists and you assume they dont, but u technicaly cant know for sure, yet u take one (god)
daltondoyou4 2 years ago
we don't need a scientific evidence that god exists, we only need common sense . most of modern physics theories are based upon assumptions and testing and we live by these theories, so why is it so hard to believe the assumption of a creator, though we are a creation? this is tangible and can be tested "if anyone dosnt believe that he exist, just pinch your ass"
Taken for granted that big bang is correct where did the matter and energy that banged came from?
Mohannad192 2 years ago
3wrongnotes,
We cant describe what we cant sense true, and if god exists in a different immaterial realm we cant quantify him, that is also true, but we cant prove that such an entity dose not exist also, so this argument is piontless.
answer me a simple question, could there be a creation without a creator?
After that we talk about god. don't argue theacidpulp on his beliefs about god and his features, you don't believe in him, but argue about a creator it will be more productive
Mohannad192 2 years ago
@theacidpulp I don't see how you can say science is a leap of faith. What does science say about the origins of life? It says, "We don't know". What does science say regarding what brought about the big bang and what came before it? It says, "We don't know". Where exactly is the leap of faith?
MrIcarusflysagain 1 year ago
i wouldn't classify myself as belonging solely to any one religion or philosophy. i try to listen to other people's beliefs and take from them what i can use. what i mean to say is that a person's beliefs can not and should not be explained by way of a one-word, soundbite answer. understand?
theacidpulp 2 years ago
ADEAU
TitoxthexBandito 2 years ago
because i said so
TitoxthexBandito 2 years ago
oh, right.
theacidpulp 2 years ago
end your life etc. etc.
i grow weary of this routine
TitoxthexBandito 2 years ago
lol
why specifically should i end my life?
provide details.
theacidpulp 2 years ago
probly because its upseting how somone can make sense most the time, then fail because they assume there has to be a why. just because your brain evolved to be able to ask why, doesnt mean there has to be one, or that it is reasonable to assume one.
daltondoyou4 2 years ago
see, but that doesn't make logical sense. if there is no why, then why is there an argument at all? also, why is it reasonable to assume there isn't one? everybody who doesn't come to the conclusion that there isn't a god "fails"? are you retarded? seriously? do you listen to yourself talk? do any of you listen to yourselves talk?
theacidpulp 2 years ago
your 1st setence broken down says "see that doesnt make sence, if there is no why to the universe they why is there an argument about it". realize how that doesnt realy fallow? there is an argument because u think there is a why to the universe when there doesnt have to be at all. its reasonable to assume there is no why to the universe because it is all just the property of energy, there is no why involved, do u ask why about gravity? you dint fully read the "fail" sentence, no mention of god.
daltondoyou4 2 years ago
keep in mind my purpose for these conversations with you is not to necessarily prove your wrong or im right, but just to perhaps learn something form eachother. when i make arguments i may sound dickish but its just because im trying to argue to the point in 500 characters.
daltondoyou4 2 years ago