ADVERTISEMENT

Jesus Christ . .

Just wanted to share A Scripture that Came to Heart.

Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him

It's All About Faith folks. You can't see the Wind can you? But you know it's their because you feel it. You can't see God, but if you place your Faith in Him and Accept Him, I promise you can feel Him at times when The Holy Spirit is Moving!
 
Just wanted to share A Scripture that Came to Heart.

Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him

It's All About Faith folks. You can't see the Wind can you? But you know it's their because you feel it. You can't see God, but if you place your Faith in Him and Accept Him, I promise you can feel Him at times when The Holy Spirit is Moving!

That's an absurd analogy. I can measure the wind and verify its effects without any subjective bias that it is actually blowing.
 
But for years and years, people have bought into the Christian faith because it gives them a sense of peace. Why try to shit on that? If you don't believe, just f*ck off and leave those that do believe alone.
Problem is down through the centuries Christians and other religions have had a bad habit of killing people who didn't believe their way.
 
Not believing in a god at all is simply a lack of belief in god. It all comes down to the burden of proof. There's no logical way to prove something doesn't exist. So should we be agnostic about every fictitious human invention? Should we be agnostic about Russel's Teapot?

I realize you can't prove that god doesn't exist, but it's something that you do believe to be true. It's not something that you personally seem unsure about.

I think Russell's Teapot isn't a very good analogy. It's a physical thing and wouldn't have any reason to exist there, and it's existence wouldn't have any effect on anything else we can see.

Whatever created the particles that ended up combining to form the matter that ended up being the big bang needed to come from somewhere, and science doesn't have a very good answer for that happening naturally. Therefore, believing something supernatural was needed to place something in the physical world to start everything seems like as good an explanation as any.
 
Problem is down through the centuries Christians and other religions have had a bad habit of killing people who didn't believe their way.

Well, that doesn't happen now so we don't really need to discuss that. I'm sorry if some of your nonbelieving ancestors were victims.
 
I realize you can't prove that god doesn't exist, but it's something that you do believe to be true. It's not something that you personally seem unsure about.

I think Russell's Teapot isn't a very good analogy. It's a physical thing and wouldn't have any reason to exist there, and it's existence wouldn't have any effect on anything else we can see.

Whatever created the particles that ended up combining to form the matter that ended up being the big bang needed to come from somewhere, and science doesn't have a very good answer for that happening naturally. Therefore, believing something supernatural was needed to place something in the physical world to start everything seems like as good an explanation as any.

If you're going to assume that something supernatural had to invent those particles for them to exist, then why wouldn't you assume that something supernatural had to create that god? Its an infinitely regressive rabbit hole. The problem is we think of time as linear because of our basic intuitions. That model doesn't make sense in cosmological terms.

I posted about this in another thread.

But this is just the god of the gaps argument. Just because science doesn't have an answer yet doesn't make the assumption that god is responsible a reasonable assumption.
 
If you're going to assume that something supernatural had to invent those particles for them to exist, then why wouldn't you assume that something supernatural had to create that god? Its an infinitely regressive rabbit hole.

The difference here is that I know that physical things need to be created from other physical things. The physical world is something I'm pretty aware of. I don't know that something supernatural needs to be created by something else because I don't understand how the supernatural works, it's not physical.
 
The difference here is that I know that physical things need to be created from other physical things. The physical world is something I'm pretty aware of. I don't know that something supernatural needs to be created by something else because I don't understand how the supernatural works, it's not physical.

So you're just inventing a loophole for your own rule.

Matter isn't created nor is it destroyed. Its simply restructured or rearranged. All of the matter in the universe existed before the Big Bang. It was just in singularity. A better model would be thinking of the universe like a lung. Quantum fluctuations cause the singularity to explode (Big Bang) and the universe expands until the matter and energy is so dispersed that the universe can no longer hold itself up, and quantum fluctuations cause space to collapse in on itself until the singularity is reached again. And it cycles on endlessly. No beginning, and no end.
 
Matter isn't created nor is it destroyed. Its simply restructured or rearranged. All of the matter in the universe existed before the Big Bang. It was just in singularity. A better model would be thinking of the universe like a lung. Quantum fluctuations cause the singularity to explode (Big Bang) and the universe expands until the matter and energy is so dispersed that the universe can no longer hold itself up, and quantum fluctuations cause space to collapse in on itself until the singularity is reached again. And it cycles on endlessly. No beginning, and no end.

Sure, I can agree with all that. I guess our difference is that you believe that matter has always just been there in perpetuity, whereas I feel like there must have been something, not made of matter, to create that matter in the first place.
 
Sure, I can agree with all that. I guess our difference is that you believe that matter has always just been there in perpetuity, whereas I feel like there must have been something, not made of matter, to create that matter in the first place.

The concept of "in the first place" is where I think you go wrong. You're thinking of time as linear. So there must have been at time before that matter exists. But that doesn't necessarily make sense. It just fits our intuitions, because our intuitions were evolved in our environment, and based on what gives us the best chance to survive/procreate.
 
So you're just inventing a loophole for your own rule.

Matter isn't created nor is it destroyed. Its simply restructured or rearranged. All of the matter in the universe existed before the Big Bang. It was just in singularity. A better model would be thinking of the universe like a lung. Quantum fluctuations cause the singularity to explode (Big Bang) and the universe expands until the matter and energy is so dispersed that the universe can no longer hold itself up, and quantum fluctuations cause space to collapse in on itself until the singularity is reached again. And it cycles on endlessly. No beginning, and no end.

Neat theory. It’ll be interesting to see if it plays out that way.
 
You couldn't be more wrong........

I don’t think you’ve ever made a poast or comment that meant anything to me. I’ve never found anything you’ve poasted to be interesting, funny or worth the time I spent reading it. I’ve essentially tuned you out. I literally scroll by your poasts every time unless I get a notification that you quoted me. And then I just disregard your thoughts as “that’s just that old fella and while he means no harm, he’s probably just losing his mind.” So it goes without saying that the above quoted poast of yours was looked upon with that sentiment. You can continue to respond to my comments, but it was only fair that I tell you that.
 
I don’t think you’ve ever made a poast or comment that meant anything to me. I’ve never found anything you’ve poasted to be interesting, funny or worth the time I spent reading it. I’ve essentially tuned you out. I literally scroll by your poasts every time unless I get a notification that you quoted me. And then I just disregard your thoughts as “that’s just that old fella and while he means no harm, he’s probably just losing his mind.” So it goes without saying that the above quoted poast of yours was looked upon with that sentiment. You can continue to respond to my comments, but it was only fair that I tell you that.

I'm not saying you're wrong...but I'm saying

89e100ea-e715-4ab7-92a4-557ba2079ddb_text.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terror Beard
I'm really entertained when the Abrahamic religions fight among themselves. THAT is tragically funny. Protestants murdering Catholics. Muslims hating Jews. It's hilarious. They all have the exact same characters in their mythology and they can't even get on the same page.

Hell, I love it even more when Baptists argue with each other! Catholics and Protestants murdering one another and they have THE SAME SAVIOR! It's poetic!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
I don’t think you’ve ever made a poast or comment that meant anything to me. I’ve never found anything you’ve poasted to be interesting, funny or worth the time I spent reading it. I’ve essentially tuned you out. I literally scroll by your poasts every time unless I get a notification that you quoted me. And then I just disregard your thoughts as “that’s just that old fella and while he means no harm, he’s probably just losing his mind.” So it goes without saying that the above quoted poast of yours was looked upon with that sentiment. You can continue to respond to my comments, but it was only fair that I tell you that.
Gosh, if there was just something you could do to solve your problem. I bet if you put on your thinking cap you could come up with it....
 
You couldn't be more wrong........
I'd say it's a little of both. You can find far more people who lead lives of peace and empathy in the religions. But, if people WANT to interpret and be inspired to commit violence, then The Bible, The Quran, The Little Engine That Could, will provide written motivation and even justification.
 
I'm really entertained when the Abrahamic religions fight among themselves. THAT is tragically funny. Protestants murdering Catholics. Muslims hating Jews. It's hilarious. They all have the exact same characters in their mythology and they can't even get on the same page.

Hell, I love it even more when Baptists argue with each other! Catholics and Protestants murdering one another and they have THE SAME SAVIOR! It's poetic!

I know what you mean. I personally find it hilarious when two minority groups that liberals have brainwashed battle to see who can sound more victimized. Kind of the same thing.
 
I'd say it's a little of both. You can find far more people who lead lives of peace and empathy in the religions. But, if people WANT to interpret and be inspired to commit violence, then The Bible, The Quran, The Little Engine That Could, will provide written motivation and even justification.

Come on... Two out of three of those books explicitly condone violence with the justification of divine authority. It doesn’t take some ridiculous leap to get to a violent interpretation of the Bible or the Quran. Acting like it’s just crazy people could find a justification in any book completely fails to address the issue of problematic religious doctrines that lead people to violence. Neither the Quran nor the Bible have any shortage of those doctrines.
 
I'm really entertained when the Abrahamic religions fight among themselves. THAT is tragically funny. Protestants murdering Catholics. Muslims hating Jews. It's hilarious. They all have the exact same characters in their mythology and they can't even get on the same page.

Hell, I love it even more when Baptists argue with each other! Catholics and Protestants murdering one another and they have THE SAME SAVIOR! It's poetic!

I know what you mean. I personally find it hilarious when two minority groups that liberals have brainwashed battle to see who can sound more victimized. Kind of the same thing.

I find both of these hilarious.
 
Come on... Two out of three of those books explicitly condone violence with the justification of divine authority. It doesn’t take some ridiculous leap to get to a violent interpretation of the Bible or the Quran. Acting like it’s just crazy people could find a justification in any book completely fails to address the issue of problematic religious doctrines that lead people to violence. Neither the Quran nor the Bible have any shortage of those doctrines.
Oh, I know they have the texts. But, I also know that a vast majority of Muslims, Jews, Catholics and Protestants manage to worship every Friday, Saturday and Sunday and there are relatively few acts of violence on a weekly basis.
 
Oh, I know they have the texts. But, I also know that a vast majority of Muslims, Jews, Catholics and Protestants manage to worship every Friday, Saturday and Sunday and there are relatively few acts of violence on a weekly basis.

Because they ignore those parts of the text. It doesn’t make those part any less heinous, and it doesn’t change the fact that some people do commit atrocities because of those parts. Which is why it’s ridiculous to compare those books to a children’s story and imply that it’s just crazy people looking for an excuse that they could find in any book.

The vast majority did used to adhere to those injunctions, until secular law came along and beat them into submission.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT