Do you believe in the sun? How about galaxies? Large numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Justa Lol
Printable View
Do you believe in the sun? How about galaxies? Large numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Justa Lol
come on. He didn't say he didn't believe in any big things. I'm sure he's seen the sun and at least part of the galaxy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
personally, i don't believe in some numbers. (-i)
true orwell, i didn't believe in -i until i saw it xD i've seen the sun from a far distance, we call it planet earth, if i'm correct, and yes i believe in galaxies because we know we live in one... we have no clue if there actually is a god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I can't decide if you're serious or just like to argue for the sake of it....Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
"1. If one is right, you are wrong by not choosing that one."
Nope. If in your not pursuaded by any given religion, it is not reasonable to adopt it's beliefs. You may choose to do so on Faith. You cant be morally right or wrong if you are objective. You may come to the wrong conclusion, but nobody can question your honesty.
"2. If none of them are, you are wrong because you haven't realized they are all wrong."
Same as "1"
"3. If all of them are, you are wrong my not deciding on one of them."
Same as "1". But in addition.... How can all of them be right? Even if you limit yourself to all christian-based religions, there are glaring differences between them. For example, the Holy Trinity concept.
If you are a parent of 2 or more children, and I asked you which one you loved the most, would it be wishy-washy to conclude you loved them all the same? If one of them spilled coffee on your keyboard and none of them admitted doing it, would it be possible you couldn't tell who the culprit was and not punish any of them. Or would you force yourself to pick one of them on the slightest evidence and punish the one you chose?
Please think about your comments before posting them. You might be right about your religious beliefs, but your arguments are so poorly thought out, you may pursuade other posters to become atheist or agnostic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassSpec
i believe his post is well thought out because people don't know if they believe in the right one, or if there is such thing as a god.
So you actually think its possible for all religions to be right? How can that be? How can you reconsile Catholicism and Methodism. The first believes in the Holy Trinity. The latter doesn't. How can they both be right? And this is only one example. They are inconsistent in their views of divorce, womens roll in church and life, homosexuality.... It goes on and on. How can they all be right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Justa Lol
And this example is only among Christian faiths. Throw in all other non-Christian religions and the differences are abismal. Or are we prepared to say that if there is a God, it must be the Christian God?
Why would you even consider it possible that they all have it right?
How can you not believe in that? That is just unreal!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
@MassSpec: I rarely add a serious post in this thread, and am usually playing on words, but I'll make an exception and just make a reference to a common metaphor: Maybe we are all feeling different parts of the same elephant.
Ever seen a gameshow where people have to guess what object is in their hands without looking at it. Funny how they get it wrong so often.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Nope, never seen that. Does present an interesting puzzle, though, so I see why it could be turned into a game.
i hope i'm feeling the trunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Since this thread has already jumped the shark...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tfGC7tOlrd...us-bandage.png
didn't fonzee do that in a happy day's episode?Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
... hahahah i just wikied it and it says that the happy days episode is the origin of this phrase. LOL!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._the_shark.PNG
A wild guess: They can't find the documentation for the same, and so can't decide if it's an intended feature or a bug. Best to ignore, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by dee-u
On a more serious note, does it matter if you believe in God or not?
.
I have no opinion on parts of this, but i do like to play devil's advocate sometimes. (if he exists)Quote:
Originally Posted by MassSpec
according to all of the religions we've been discussing, moral doesn't save you. The correct belief does. Christianity doesn't care HOW moral you are.Quote:
"1. If one is right, you are wrong by not choosing that one."
Nope. If in your not pursuaded by any given religion, it is not reasonable to adopt it's beliefs. You may choose to do so on Faith. You cant be morally right or wrong if you are objective. You may come to the wrong conclusion, but nobody can question your honesty.
It's a logic break-down and a standard one at that. I was merely showing the three choices you have and how they relate. And they can be all right if buddha is the correct answer or paganism, etc. They all allow the belief in multiple gods. As for christian beliefs being different, there's always the possibility that someone lied to you and it's NOT the only way to heaven, and they would do this to drum up more believers or convert them. If this is the case (and it could be) then any religion could go to heaven (or equivalent: Nirvana, Valhalla) no matter what the church is saying. As a side note: There's a movie coming out implying that the Greek gods were real. Can you suspend belief in your God long enough to watch it?Quote:
"2. If none of them are, you are wrong because you haven't realized they are all wrong."
Same as "1"
"3. If all of them are, you are wrong my not deciding on one of them."
Same as "1". But in addition.... How can all of them be right? Even if you limit yourself to all christian-based religions, there are glaring differences between them. For example, the Holy Trinity concept.
that was exactly what i am trying to do. Don't forget that in the christian based religioins, it clearly states in their bibles that no matter how moral you are, you STILL aren't going to heaven unless you accept Jesus. This means all other religions are wrong, according to them. "many are the roads to hell and narrow is the road to me". etc.Quote:
Please think about your comments before posting them. you may pursuade other posters to become atheist or agnostic.
If one of my kids ruined my keyboard, i would punish them all. This way not admitting guilt didn't save you from punishment so there is no positive reinforcement to lie next time, and your sibling is going to make it even worse. I would only have to do this once. Next time, they would admit.Quote:
If you are a parent of 2 or more children, and I asked you which one you loved the most, would it be wishy-washy to conclude you loved them all the same? If one of them spilled coffee on your keyboard and none of them admitted doing it, would it be possible you couldn't tell who the culprit was and not punish any of them. Or would you force yourself to pick one of them on the slightest evidence and punish the one you chose?
To Lord Orwell (at this point quoting gets ridiculous)
In your last response, a breakdown of my responses, you used a fundamentalist argument (not necessarily saying that you are). That its...,
since each religion assumes as fact that their beliefs are true and correct, anyone who does not adopt their religion or tries to discredit any part of their dogma is wrong. It doesn't matter if you arrived at such conclusion via careful, impartial and reasonable thought. You are factually wrong, and some might say morally corrupt.
Under such circumstances, I could start a religion of my own. I'll make "Spongebob Squarepants" my god almighty and stipulate that any form of human thought that concludes that Spongebob is not THE GOD, is wrong.
See what I mean? Religions are by definition, self-contained and self-justifying. It they were'nt, they would collapse in short time. This is because they have so little evidence to go on, even if they have it right.
This is why discussing the merits of any religion has to occur from the outside. Not within the confines of any belief. Which is why I can't care about whether or not religion thinks I'm wrong or immoral. If I did care, my conclusions would be prejudiced and partial.
I know religious people with whom I can have a good healthy discussion about this subject. But if I come across one who just cant step out of the box, and starts throwing arguments based on what "the bible says" or some personal religious experience, like feeling god or whatever, I'm out the door. I wouldn't even bother. They are just too entrenched to see things from outside the box.
Regarding the culprit who ruined the keyboard..... I used the story to draw up an analogy as to why it is difficult to chose the right course of action. Whether it's punishing the keyboard bandit, or choosing the "right" religion. Your approach to parenting is analogous to the agnostic one..... no conclusive evidence, so they are all guilty.
So you expect a religious person to step outside of this box you are talking about, but you aren't ok with changing your perspective? Maybe you are entrenched in your own arrogance?Quote:
Originally Posted by MassSpec
How is that arrogant? I wouldn't expect a religious person to abandon their beliefs. But we can all be devil's advocate in such discussions. And by the way..... what makes you think I'm not stepping out-of-the-box? If you do, I'm flattered. Because it means I'm doing a very good job at it. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
You totally missed it dude...Quote:
Originally Posted by MassSpec
Enlighten me...Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
if you think all religions are that closed-minded, you need to study them more. Check out wicca, druidism, any of the native american ones...
"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks" -Psalms 137:9
Its a quote i live by
yep its full of stuff like that. Yet we give these things to children to read?Quote:
Originally Posted by dclamp
Here's my favourite:
"the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him"
although i also like the part where lot offered his daughters to a rape gang.
Here's some more choice quotes, designed to get you thinking about exactly how you are supposed to worship.
Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven.
Matthew 6:1 Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith . . . not by works.
James 2:14-17 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? . . . Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
I can understand people who are religious and believe in nice things like good people going to heaven, but it's those who believe things like the bible being the literal word of God who I don't understand. What do they think of biblical quotes like these?
lol that's the page i cut and pasted some of mine fromQuote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
Well, the thing that I find strange is that the church seems to change its mind on what god is a lot. Example: How can one man say whether there is one god or many gods?As I am sure many of you are aware in ancient times people believed in a number of gods then all of sudden its like "Hey lets make it so there is only one god"! Also, religion will always win the argument over science about what created the earth/universe because it has no solid proof to support or deny its claims.
does God believe in human beings ??
even the old testament mentions them. It says their god hates them but that they are real. Baal comes to mind but there's another one too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightwalker83
It's a matter of degree... Some religions are not THAT "closed-minded". But still "closed-minded". A religion, or any belief-based system that tolerates too much "open-minded" behavior, would eventually lose it's members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
this only proves it. The vast majority of people on the planet believe in the major closed-minded ones. The open-minded followers of zeus left years ago...Quote:
Originally Posted by MassSpec
I'm not sure what you think it proves. Mythology is a religion. It includes gods, with special powers, and it expects follower's to please their gods or face consequences. How is that "open minded"? If greek mythology was replaced by roman mythology, and roman mythology was replaced by Christianity, what does that prove?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
By the way, there is no safety in numbers. If the "vast majority of people on the planet believe in the major closed-minded ones" gives you comfort, good for you. I hope you're not suggesting the prevalence of religions justifies their beliefs or proves anything. Does the prevalence of racism, genocide, and wars, over our entire history justify anything? The 20th century was the most violent in our entire history. More people participated and died in wars fought in the name of political ideology, nationalism or self-proclaimed superiority, than ever before. Is that a vindication of their political, nationalistic, or racial beliefs?
I can't decide if you two represent two different sides of the same position, or are each involved with arguing a different aspects of the same side.
both:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
That explains it.
i agree*
and no i don't think it proves anything. Because you know that by simple math it can be shown that approximately half the people on the world are stupider than the average.
Does the Bible really have this in its text?? It's surprising to know, I must say. And btw I am not a Christian so I don't know much about the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
About the other quotes regarding the conflict of having faith, doing good deeds and whether or not in front of others, that too is surprising. Without any offence meant, maybe the Bible was not edited/proof-read properly? On a serious note, what is the possibility these conflicting texts were added by different people at different times? Or is there something else we may be missing?
.
The bible wasn't just written by 1 guy, for instance the New testament has the 4 gospels which everyone knows about written by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John and a bunch of other books by various different authors.Quote:
maybe the Bible was not edited/proof-read properly
But as for the Bible not being edited properly just in the Gospels which are 4 different account of the Life of Jesus they disagree or contradict each other, and yes they were written at different times, the gospel of Matthew is the earliest and the Gospel of John which was the latest was supposedly written some 50 to 60 years later.
In fact the gospel of John in places is wildly different and puts certain thing in a completely different order then in the other 3 synoptic gospels.
it's passages like this that cause different sects to exist. They all have to pick and choose which to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
And on a less dramatic note, at one time, the vast majority of peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by MassSpec
believed the sun rotated around the earth.
according to einstein, that depends on your point of view. It's all relative in space. This thread is giving me a headache. (unsubscribing to keep sanity)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoo
Maybe ... the sun and the entire universe, is really rotating around the earth while the Earth is stationary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
The other planets are rotating around the sun that rotates around the earth.
Is that a question or statement ?Quote:
Maybe ... the sun and the entire universe, is really rotating around the earth while the Earth is stationary.
The other planets are rotating around the sun that rotates around the earth.
Only when the population's Intelligence is linearly distributed on a person by person basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
For example, if you had 4 people in the world, You would think that 2 of them would have an IQ lower than their cumulative average. However, if they had as their IQ's : 60, 145, 146, and 147, then the average IQ is 124.5, but obviously only one-quarter of that population has a below average IQ.
Median is the value where half the people are below, half above.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
Excellent point. Unfortunately, the Lord has left da roomQuote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
Sorry, i had to come back for this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
So what you are saying, is it only takes a couple of dullards to bring the average down for the whole world? I figured that.
However don't forget something: With a larger sample, the scenario you gave becomes more and more unlikely. What if the sample were ... six billion? Obviously i have no way to prove it, but i would say that rounding to the nearest percent it would almost split down the middle.
I seriously doubt that. For the average so split the population down the middle, you would have to have a normally distributed population of intelligence. I would suggest that the distribution is not symetric, and the majority are below average in the actual population.
you are suggesting that MORE than half the population is below average in intelligence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
There are a couple of things to consider here:
One: Do you believe this to make your ego bigger? LOL
Two: Who is quantifying the intelligence? As you are no doubt aware, anyone of civilized society would fail any kind of test written by a plainsman or aborigine, and especially one checking for common knowledge.
I agree, intellect is very hard to measure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
IQ is a very rough measure of only the logical side of Intelligence.
But the biggest problem is most people assume IQ scores are mostly genetic.
So a region with a low IQ average is considered inherently stupid, even though it's explained by a combo of lack of education or a local culture that doesn't care about education.
Actually, I've been pondering this since I made that post (not doing any research, mind you, just pondering it). Initially, it seemed obvious that the majority had to be below average because the scale appears to have a finite lower boundary without a finite upper boundary. This would lead to a non-normal distribution, so the average would be unlikely to be centered at the midpoint of the scale, and would probably be below the midpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
However, that assumes that just be cause the scale is 0->infinity, the range of values is similar to the scale, which it clearly isn't on the upper end. The question is what happens on the lower end of the scale. I believe that the only people with an IQ of 0 are those who are dead, and they don't count.
Leaving aside the absurdity of such a measurement as IQ, what is the actual distribution on the scale? If it is normally distributed, then the mean and the median will probably be almost identical. If the distribution is not normal, then the mean and the median will probably differ. I would guess that the mean would be above the median (and thus the majority would be below the mean), simply because the tail out appears to be more extended in the upper end (an IQ of 180 is rare while an IQ of 20 may not be measurable). Is that a valid assumption? I have no idea.
it's a reasonable theory, but due to the scale involved, completely unprovable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Let us just rephrase the original statement and it will fix all:
"Half of the population is stupider than the other half"*
*= assuming there is a definable difference in each and every person's intelligence and no one matches anyone else
It really depends on what you call intelligence. I have worked with people who have Phd's. They know their field very well but can barely tie their own shoelaces let alone do anything else. I live in a town considered a very low socioeconomic group and very limited educationally. They consider me very smart but when it comes to taking care of day to day life they have taught me more over the years than they could possibly imagine. This is why I chose to live here and why I will be here to protect them if ever some so called smart person even attempts to take advantage of them.
Bruce wayne, is that you?Quote:
Originally Posted by AsmIscool
I was going to say something like that, but nowhere near as elegantly as you just did.:lol::lol::lol::thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Unfortunately I was never bitten by a bat so I do not have super powers. However I at least am not a complete imbecile. To my idiotic neighbours "If you are going to plot and sheme against me then do not do it right outside my bedroom window. I will hear that you morons and counter accordingly"
Back to the subject and who could possibly believe in a God that allows oxygen thieves.
You've got your superheroes mixed up. Batman wasn't bitten by a bat, that was Spiderman, and he was bitten by a spider. Batman was just batty.
Oxygen thieves?Quote:
Originally Posted by AsmIscool
Oh yeah, atheists, tell me this then - if you don't believe in a god, how do you explain Adam and Eve? :afrog:
Oh yeah, theists, tell me this then - how do you explain the Bible? There were no printing presses and laser printers back then. :afrog:
(Yes, I've been spending time on 4chan)
http://i26.tinypic.com/1621mwl.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Homer
Awesome !!