-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
atheists are depicted in a wrong way
also, first post
let the game begin
In the beginning there was *everything*, which exploded.
Atheism does not necessitate belief in the big bang.
Christianity requires belief that a beardy superman made everything in the universe in a week.
In the beginning was MY DICK!!! … which asploded…
But the cosmic background radiation! And the maths! And the other stuff I am too forgetful to remember!
But I reckon the Big Bang wasn’t the ultimate start of everything. Isn’t there that hypothesis that the big bang was started by the collapse of an earlier universe? I think it possibly went on like that forever. Has that since been proven to be incorrect, or is it still a reasonable idea?
“Agnosticism: In the beginning there was something which humans are not able to understand (or at least those of us that are awake enough to understand we cannot understand). Which did something which we are attempted to try and understand through various means but we still do not truly know.”
Yay for logic. 😀
@Ando:
Not exactly. Creationism requires belief that a beardy superman made everything in the universe in a week. Mentally sane Christians (like I am) can very well cope with the Theory of Evolution which stands in no conflict with Christian beliefs. Just because some dickheads take a book literally that was not even taken literally by the jews 3.000 years ago does not mean that Christianity doubts Evolution.
I am pleased. Goldfinger, you are verily a sensible fellow. I’ll turn a blind eye to your fetish for aiming lasers at sensitive parts of the anatomy.
It would just make sense then, that the big bang was caused when god himself exploded.
THERE WAS NO FUCKING BEGINNING.
Most of us are half-assed philosophers who need to assume there was a beginning because you can’t conceptualise something without it having a beginning.
How could there be nothing? To be is to exist, and nothing cannot be. So how could there have been nothing (which is a logical absurdity), in addition to this nothing (which doesn’t exist remember, it cannot be) preceding a beginning.
There being something requires less explanation than there being nothing. Somethingness is all we’ve ever known.
You said it yourself, “Somethingness is all we’ve ever KNOWN.”
Just to throw in a point, the Big Bang was just the beginning of the material universe, but the beginning of space-time itself. There was nothing before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. Its a nonsense question.
As Stephen Hawking put it, talking about what happened before the big bang is like talking about what’s North of the North Pole.
@Goldfinger
“the Theory of Evolution which stands in no conflict with Christian beliefs.”
That depends on the Christian in question.
How do you decide which parts of the bible to take metaphorically and which to take literally? Can you believe God is a metaphor and still be a Christian?
@The Matrix: Rebooted: Duh, the “Norther Pole” is North of the North Pole. North of that is the “Northest Pole”, and after that it just gets weird.
Atheists will believe what atheists want to believe. Christians and other theists will believe what they want to believe. One has no real chance of convincing the other. Why even try? All these posts do it try to piss off one or the other.
“Why even try? All these posts do it try to piss off one or the other.”
Isn’t that a good enough reason?
Why dont we just copy everything from the FIRST TIME this was posted and paste it in here? Needless to say: REPOST
It’s North Poles all the way up.
Basically, without stuff, there is no time, but the chance the universe creates itself exists. It somewhere where there isn’t time, this inevitably happens straight away.
Schrodingers cat explains quantum possibilities (Wrongly)- What really happens is everytime something happens, there is a “parellel” universe where it doesn’t. So the universe must exist, because it didn’t exist at the same time.
^^ my brain just exploded.
@Ando:
We may believe so today, but people a few thousand years ago were not stupid.
I’m a Christian, but as a historian I know that I have to treat the bible as a source. And actually we can separate the descriptions of real things/events/persons from the metaphors and the things we cannot prove.
The metaphor I meant before is God hanging the stars into the sky like lamps. We can be pretty sure that this is a satire aiming to piss off the Babylonians who believed the stars to be Gods. By showing that the hebrew God put these Gods in their places the Hebrews wanted to show that their God is superior to the Babylonian Gods.
On the other hand, the Bible gives us very accurate descriptions of how the Babylonian Ziqqurats were built.
And so forth.
And just to use a very simple example: As a Lutheran, do I have to believe that mankind was created 4000 B.C. just because Luther said so 500 years ago although we have proof he was wrong (and actually just called a random number because he didn’t care, too).
So, we know about Evolution, we know that mankind wasn’t created the way we know it today. So an approximatly 4.000 year old myth is busted. Still I cannot see any proof for the non-existence of any God at all.
So much for my humble point of view 😉
Second paragraph was meant as a question, not as a statement. Damn my keyboard…
“What really happens is everytime something happens, there is a “parellel†universe where it doesn’t.”
Just be clear: that is a hypothesis. Until someone carries out an experiment to test the hypothesis, its not really even science.
Let’s leave making untestable claims about reality to the fundies, ok?
HA
HA
RELIGIOUS DEBATE
C’mon guys, you’re clogging up my internet tubes. At least suck less at this.
Wookie: “Christians and other theists will believe what they want to believe.”
“Christians and other theists will believe what they are told* to believe”
Fixed.
@Goldfinger
Your “holy book”, the New Testament, was actually written more like 1800 years ago. None of the gospels were written by anyone that was alive when any of it happened (that’s why they contradict each other).
@Alec:
Parts of it were written in the 1st century, other parts later. Most of it are letters that don’t tell “the story” but are written to preach.
@Shanghai:
And atheist don’t believe what they are told because they have found the one and only truth without anybody telling them?
and who said fuck all about the truth? the “truth” sadly is subjective as all. fact on the other hand is an even bigger bitch to figure out, and anyone who knows the facts is usually branded a psychopath/sociopath/lunatic and summarily ignored.
why so cereal? religous debates are for people wit hnothing to do this why im not going to say anything other than tiki = forum fodder benevolant overlord.
“till I cannot see any proof for the non-existence of any God at all.”
This is why I believe that there’s a teapot orbiting Mars.
Because no one has ever proved otherwise.
Grape juice is tasty…
mmmmmmmm, grape juice….
@Lord:
I enjoyed the ‘discussion’/sugar-fuelled rantings in the first post more than this one. Don’t mind reposts like this one, though . . .
@tiki:
Faith is powerful. We believe what we wish to believe (I know, that’s not news). I’d like to believe in some benevolent power that created everything, looks out for us, and will give us a pat on the the back and some sort of debriefing when we die, but the very fact that I’d LIKE to believe makes my interpretations suspect. And I know I’m not alone here.
And I fucking love white grape juice.
I prefer red grape juice.
oh, btw: HERETIC!!!
😉
@tripolar
And I’m not alone in my teapot beliefs. The only thing that I know is that there is 100% definitely not someone in the sky that pats my back when I do good, and punishes people that do bad. It’s great to guess about certain things, but really, why make up some “guy in the sky” hypothesis that can never be tested nor proven?
People want things to make sense. A scenario where good is rewarded & evil punished makes sense to us, matches our sense of fair play. (Someone is an asshole in MCS, people want them punished, ie: banned: if some good-guy poster was banned, no-one would think that was just.) God is the referee/parent for a lot of people: he/she doles out the punishment AND the hugs. ‘Tis a notion that can never be tested, to be sure, but Groucho said religion was the opiate of the masses: it makes people feel better when things hurt, it helps them to order their lives.
@... Goldfinger
Apologies for my poor question. It made the assumtion that the bible consists solely of truth and metaphor.
A better question would have been:
“How can you tell what to take literally, what to take metaphorically and what to disregard as blatant fiction”
I find that a good general rule is to assume the latter unless there is evidence to the contrary.
@... Tiki
Do you believe that the milk goes in first or that the tea goes in first? *readies his kneecapping mallet*
ando, as everyone knows the natural and holy way is to put the tea in first. Anything else is blaspheme.
@tiki:
HERETIC!!! You will burn in HELL for your feeble belief that tea should go in first. Of course milk (and sugar) go in first and you NEVER, EVER, EVER stir!
Wait ’til I get hold of your kneecaps!
Tea in first. I’ve never heard such a nonsense.
@Ando:
That is a good general rule, indeed. But that brings us to the old problem that people will believe anything until they find out it’s in the Bible.
Most of the things in there, especially in the Old Testament are not simply one of the three categories but a part of each. If you take the story of Noah: Of course we know, that mankind and all the animals did not descend from the passengers of the Ark. We cannot prove, if there has ever been something like the Ark (but there has most probably not been one). But we can be pretty sure that there has been a remarkable flood disaster that this myth is evolved from. And the place where the Ark is said to have landed did exist, for that we have archaeological proof. Although all those people climbing up Mt. Ararat to find the remains don’t seem to know much about the hebraic language, which contains no vocals and therefor the word ‘rrt’ could mean Mt. Ararat but it could also mean the nation of Uratru which was a pretty large nation in today’s eastern Turkey and northern Iraq and Iran.
That’s actually one thing my Professors use to joke about: We have about 5 times as much requests for digging permissions for Mt. Ararat as we have for the whole of Urartu.
Well, I hope you get my point out of all this rigmarole.
Roffle.. okay, Tripolar, I’m gonna guess you were just kidding when you said: “‘Tis a notion that can never be tested, to be sure, but Groucho said religion was the opiate of the masses: it makes people feel better when things hurt, it helps them to order their lives.”
.. You did mean Karl Marx, right? 😛
If you did, good joke. If not.. heh.
@Fen:
Yes, it was a joke. Bless you for noticing.