Conquer Club

Norse wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Norse wrote:I wanna stay in my bone-box. Plenty of peace and quiet.

Unfortunately, that's not an option.

Yes it goddam well is.

I was watching a national geographic program last evening and just woke up realising Jay's right in at least two cases I know of.

One is in Paris, appearently the cemetary plots are not owned but leased. Infact Jim Morrison was set to be moved as his lease had run out. Some benifactor came forward and renewed it so we can continue to pilgramige to it, get stoned, have orgies and tag the surrounding tombstones. However when no one renews the lease someone comes along and digs up the bone box, takes it and empties it onto a shelf in the catacombs.

The second one much more well known is, some rich kings that went to great lengths to set up very nice bone boxes and the finest mosoleums in the world. The egyptian pharohs. You would have thought at the time that no one would ever disturb those ones. Now some of the corpses get taken around in trucks and even disected. So much for Resting-In-Peace.

So now I'm frightened, Jay's not supposed to be right. Someone hold me, I need a hug.

Who cares, it's just bones. All plastic products essentially come from once-living things*, but you don't see anyone getting all sentimental about a Tesco's carrier bag. Well, no sane person anyway.

tbh maggots or whatever are more than welcome to my bodily bits & pieces after I've finished with them ... not like I'll be needing them, is it?



* unless you believe that the earth is 6000 years old and made by god, in which case they're made out of stuff that just appeared there by magic

Iliad wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Norse wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Norse wrote:Besides, logic dictates that we evolved from apes, and that the universe began with a big bang... so, I would not consider my beliefs as irrational.

Would you believe it? I subscribe to both evolution and the big bang theory. What do you know? Maybe if you took the time to partake in the various debates we have here instead of labeling all Christians as "irrational" you'd know that.

Well, wouldn't that be a contradiction?

I mean, if the world was created by the big bang, then how did god create the earth? And if humans and all other creatures developed autonomously throughout time, then how did god create all of his creatures?

Yes but Norse... what created the Big Bang?

And what created whatever created the Big Bang?

Simple cause and effect logic dictates that everything must have a cause. Only problem with that is eventually you must reach a breach in that cause and effect logic, because ultimately there must be something which never had a cause. Atheists just say they don't know what that breach in logic is - theists say that breach is God. Either way, both parties believe in an irrationality.

If you're actually interested in continuing this, do a search for the Agnostic thread. There's several pages of good stuff in there.

edit- and backglass, I'd invite you to do likewise.

Actually when talking about infinite space and something such as the big bang simple logic is not good. Albert Einstein ignored logic and common sense and look what he found!

By thinking in very broad terms you can't understand it.

Albert Einstein ignored the basic laws of physics, not logic.

Something coming from nothing is a basic logical fallacy which can't really be ignored.

In theory, and logically thinking, something came from nothing. Wether it's God or a big rock which created the Big Bang.

If Something created the Big bang, something created God.

freezie wrote:In theory, and logically thinking, something came from nothing.

Exactly. Except that's a logical fallacy. My point is that atheism and theism both boil down to a basic irrationality.

But what if physics will some day show that nothing can come of something?

MeDeFe wrote:But what if physics will some day show that nothing can come of something?

...then something will have to be done about it! Nothing comes to mind at this moment.

Than physics will disprove logic, which is it's epistemological foundation, and become self-defeating.

MR. Nate wrote:Than physics will disprove logic, which is it's epistemological foundation, and become self-defeating.

Technically, the foundation of science is observation. Logic is the foundation of discourse and reason, and so if science proves that something can indeed come from nothing then logic is safe.

If science proves, let's say, that the big bang was a massive energy reaction in which energy became matter, then since energy is takes up no space (i.e. is nothing, tangibly speaking) logic is satisfied.

The idea of cause and effect, as well as the notion that everything has an origin point could quite possibly be a failing of human brains. Only time can tell.

But observation relies on logic to be processed. You can't simply observe, it has to be digested somehow. Observation, followed by logic or reason, is the foundation of the entire scientific process, so if logic were somehow proved to be faulty, we would have to rethink the scientific process.

The reason that christians are so annoying is because they eat flesh and drink blood in their twisted sunday services. I can't believe that they are still eating chunks of their messiah in a cannibalistic fashion and being allowed to get away with it. That's the annoying thing about them, damn heathens...

MR. Nate wrote:But observation relies on logic to be processed. You can't simply observe, it has to be digested somehow. Observation, followed by logic or reason, is the foundation of the entire scientific process, so if logic were somehow proved to be faulty, we would have to rethink the scientific process.

Exactly. And that is why science survives ground-shaking events like that, it stops and reviews what needs to be changed in the theory/process before moving on.

EDIT: And if something happens that rejects the traditional human idea of cause and effect, it will at least do it in a definitive manner. That way you can look at it and say, "It isn't logical, and here's why. This happened, we have proof, it may turn your entire paradigm upside-down but there you go."

Christianity, for all the good its done for both individuals and the collective unconscious as a whole, just doesn't have that ability. If something happens that shifts dogma in a radical or unexpected manner, schisms occur between the old guard and the new guard.

Look at Martin Luther, all he wanted to do was make changes to the existing structure. Instead, he had to start a whole new branch of the tree because the existing structure wasn't interested in changing.

EDIT2: People with deep, soul-filling beliefs won't toss them aside because someone comes along with new information or a new theory. Scientists will argue about the new theory, and you'll get schisms, but in the end the two opposing camps will eventually come up with something and come back together.

A bunch of people rejected the notion of genetic drift in evolutionary theory because the idea of so-called junk DNA floating around in the gene pool seemed absurd to them. Nowadays, it's all but part of the mainstream theory.

I was working once and a guy came up to me and asked me if I believed in God, then started talking sarcastically and telling me I was stupid and that there was all this proof of no God for about 5 minutes, until the store owner shooed him away.

People like this on ALL sides are annoying.

vtmarik wrote:

MR. Nate wrote:But observation relies on logic to be processed. You can't simply observe, it has to be digested somehow. Observation, followed by logic or reason, is the foundation of the entire scientific process, so if logic were somehow proved to be faulty, we would have to rethink the scientific process.

Exactly. And that is why science survives ground-shaking events like that, it stops and reviews what needs to be changed in the theory/process before moving on.

EDIT: And if something happens that rejects the traditional human idea of cause and effect, it will at least do it in a definitive manner. That way you can look at it and say, "It isn't logical, and here's why. This happened, we have proof, it may turn your entire paradigm upside-down but there you go."

Christianity, for all the good its done for both individuals and the collective unconscious as a whole, just doesn't have that ability. If something happens that shifts dogma in a radical or unexpected manner, schisms occur between the old guard and the new guard.

Look at Martin Luther, all he wanted to do was make changes to the existing structure. Instead, he had to start a whole new branch of the tree because the existing structure wasn't interested in changing.

EDIT2: People with deep, soul-filling beliefs won't toss them aside because someone comes along with new information or a new theory. Scientists will argue about the new theory, and you'll get schisms, but in the end the two opposing camps will eventually come up with something and come back together.

A bunch of people rejected the notion of genetic drift in evolutionary theory because the idea of so-called junk DNA floating around in the gene pool seemed absurd to them. Nowadays, it's all but part of the mainstream theory.

Basically, carnallity (or Sin-Nature), pollutes the mind, therefore producing schisms. Woah, I'm suprised just how close you came to this very simple principle.

That should have been "something can come of nothing" in my last post... big typo on my part, sorry.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Basically, carnallity (or Sin-Nature), pollutes the mind, therefore producing schisms. Woah, I'm suprised just how close you came to this very simple principle.

Is it sin? Really?

It's not the fact that no man is willing to abandon his life-long beliefs regardless of whether or not it's worth taking a look at?

It's not the inherent inflexibility of a highly-structured religious framework that is so fragile that any new thought could cause it to come tumbling down rather than adapting to the new information?

Whew, thanks for clearing that up, I was confused there.

vtmarik wrote:It's not the inherent inflexibility of a highly-structured religious framework that is so fragile that any new thought could cause it to come tumbling down rather than adapting to the new information?

The biggest problems come when people hold too tightly to the non-essential tradition that they have associated with their beliefs instead of looking at the basic structure. A well developed Biblical theology is not nearly as inflexible as the personal theology of most Christians.

vtmarik wrote:Look at Martin Luther, all he wanted to do was make changes to the existing structure. Instead, he had to start a whole new branch of the tree because the existing structure wasn't interested in changing.

I'd rather not look at Martin Luther as he has been dead for a few centuries and that tends not to make one look all that good. But if you want to look at Martin Luther, perhaps you shold also look to Francis di Bernardone. The church wasn't interested in changing then either. He didn't leave, he just changed the church, founded an order and became a saint.

The problem isn't religion. The problem is people. Some people simply give up, other people keep at it until what was thought was unchangable changes. You can see examples of both kinds throughout all of history in religious, political and even corporate scenarios.

So you can have Martain Luther, I'll take Francis of Assisi anytime.

Neutrino wrote:Although the evangelicals and various other groups of pushy Christians aren't forcing people to choose their religion, they are certainly biasing the choice their way.

Why wouldn't they? They made a conscious choice to choose the Christian message and share it with other people. People who don't want to accept it don't. People who do want to accept it do. Being biased towards the Christian message isn't any more wrong than being biased toward the atheistic message.

Neutrino wrote:I would assume you are against biasing anyone's religous choices in any way.

I still don't know what you mean by this. You talk as if the very fact that someone shares their Christian beliefs with someone else gives them the power to manipulate their mind. Since you reject the Christian worldview that would show that these "pushy" evangelicals didn't have the power to control your mind. Once again, who are these people that you refer to that have the power to control other peoples' thoughts and beliefs?

Neutrino wrote:I would have to say that your choice in religous faction is not the wisest.

and what gives you the right to sit in judgment of other people who won't go along with your belief system?

Neutrino wrote:Just a little addition of mine to this religous debate: god cannot be infinitely just and infinitely compassionate or kind. They are mutally exculsive terms.

How do you know that? Do you have infinite knowledge of every single thing and how it's defined? If you're creating your own definitions of what is just and compassionate then you've created a god in your own mind that you can criticize however you want because they're your definitions.

Yup, I think I have once and for all proved that members of the christian faith are the most annoying, pedantic, self-righteous individuals.

Thanks guys for proving my point so eloquently.

"I got a bite, I reeled it in, but it was only a tiddler.."



Im done fishing for christians, too weak-a-prey (boring, uninspiring, uinlearned and hereditarily wrong)...i'm moving onto bigger fish now...

Thanks for the easy bite!

DangerBoy wrote:
Why wouldn't they? They made a conscious choice to choose the Christian message and share it with other people. People who don't want to accept it don't. People who do want to accept it do. Being biased towards the Christian message isn't any more wrong than being biased toward the atheistic message.


I still don't know what you mean by this. You talk as if the very fact that someone shares their Christian beliefs with someone else gives them the power to manipulate their mind. Since you reject the Christian worldview that would show that these "pushy" evangelicals didn't have the power to control your mind. Once again, who are these people that you refer to that have the power to control other peoples' thoughts and beliefs?

From what you said ("everyone is free to choose their own religion") I assumed you were against biasing anyone's religous choice in any way. Free will should be just that; free. When you start actively promoting bias
then it becomes nothing more than a mockery of actual free will.

Do advertisements force you to buy something? No. Do they bias your choice in their favour? Certainly. This is advertisement in something far to precious to be violated in that way.

DangerBoy wrote:and what gives you the right to sit in judgment of other people who won't go along with your belief system?

I was actually speaking from the assumption that you were not supporting bias, yet your faction was.
How can you claim to support free will when also supporting bias? How can it be considered 'free will' when there is a +20% (numbers entirely made up) chance they'll choose your religion?

DangerBoy wrote:How do you know that? Do you have infinite knowledge of every single thing and how it's defined? If you're creating your own definitions of what is just and compassionate then you've created a god in your own mind that you can criticize however you want because they're your definitions.

Justice and mercy are frequently in conflict. Infinite justice and mercy would always be in conflict.
Example: starving man steals bread to feed family. An infinitely just god would punish him; he clearly broke the law. An infinitely kind god would not; he broke the law for a good cause.

God cannot be both.

Neutrino wrote:From what you said ("everyone is free to choose their own religion") I assumed you were against biasing anyone's religous choice in any way. Free will should be just that; free. When you start actively promoting bias then it becomes nothing more than a mockery of actual free will.

Do advertisements force you to buy something? No. Do they bias your choice in their favour? Certainly. This is advertisement in something far to precious to be violated in that way.

Ok, so I guess you're conceding the point that evangelical Christians do not, and I would say cannot, push their views onto other people. Now you're changing it around to say they are biasing people when they present the religious beliefs. Again I say there is nothing wrong with presenting a bias. You have your bias and evangelical Christians have theirs.

In order for free will to be exercised it must have choices. People of various belief systems put out their arguments in favor of what they believe to be true and individuals choose what to believe and what not to believe. If we take your definition of free will to its ultimate conclusion then nobody is allowed to present any information on any subject at any time on the justification that it's biased. I don't see you restraining your bias in presenting your views in the forums.

Neutrino wrote:Justice and mercy are frequently in conflict. Infinite justice and mercy would always be in conflict.
Example: starving man steals bread to feed family. An infinitely just god would punish him; he clearly broke the law. An infinitely kind god would not; he broke the law for a good cause.

God cannot be both.

Well, those are YOUR definitions of what infinite justice and mercy are. If there is a God then He gets to decide what is just, not you or I. The incident of religious rulers who brought an adulterous woman in front of Jesus to be stoned is a good example in John 8. She clearly deserved punishment yet Jesus made them look at their own lives first, so they all went away. The Biblical God extends grace & mercy. Grace - getting what you don't deserve & Mercy - not getting what you do deserve. There will be a day of justice where those who refuse His attempts of friendship with man will be sentenced to an eternity of punishment for violating His laws.

Once again, if you are claiming that God cannot be both then you have created a god in your mind which you can tear apart and then dismiss. The God of the Bible is not the one which you seem to have a problem with.

Dancing Mustard wrote:The reason that christians are so annoying is because they eat flesh and drink blood in their twisted sunday services. I can't believe that they are still eating chunks of their messiah in a cannibalistic fashion and being allowed to get away with it. That's the annoying thing about them, damn heathens...

Whoa! DM I'd be careful bud, It looks like you are coming dangerously close to accepting the Transfiguration of the Holy Eucharist as a fact there.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:The reason that christians are so annoying is because they eat flesh and drink blood in their twisted sunday services. I can't believe that they are still eating chunks of their messiah in a cannibalistic fashion and being allowed to get away with it. That's the annoying thing about them, damn heathens...

Whoa! DM I'd be careful bud, It looks like you are coming dangerously close to accepting the Transfiguration of the Holy Eucharist as a fact there.

that's transubstantiation

At least in Catholic speak. Though aside from Orthodox, we're the only cannibal-Christians I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:The reason that christians are so annoying is because they eat flesh and drink blood in their twisted sunday services. I can't believe that they are still eating chunks of their messiah in a cannibalistic fashion and being allowed to get away with it. That's the annoying thing about them, damn heathens...

Whoa! DM I'd be careful bud, It looks like you are coming dangerously close to accepting the Transfiguration of the Holy Eucharist as a fact there.

that's transubstantiation

At least in Catholic speak. Though aside from Orthodox, we're the only cannibal-Christians I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Nope. Anglicans are cannibal-Christians too; I think that includes Episcopalians too. I'll have to ask Spurgistan.

And.

You're right I'm getting old and can't remember stuff. I always confuse transfiguration and transubstantiation.