[Serious]Why are you not a believer of the existence of God

[Lord Orwell]

Where did you get that from? That a day = 1000 years?

Even if you found a passage in a bible that said that, 2.2 million years still is way off from the 10 billion + light years away galaxies we see.

2 peter 3:8

and astronomers are constantly refining these estimates. 10 billion is the latest one. Before it was considered much higher until it was discovered that light waves lose energy in a vacuum (redshift). I wonder what other discoveries will be made that show the current estimate to be wrong as well? and anyway i said that number was a basis. Nowhere in the bible does it say how old the earth is. All it does is give you a means of estimation by listing the ages of generations.

also there is an issue with numbers and hebrews in general. They consider 7 and 10 to be perfect therefore 7 heads, 10 horns, 7 days, etc. half of 7 years for the prophets, etc. It's all a multiple of divisor of 7 almost always and 10 the rest of the time. Most scholars agree that "created in 7 days" meant to them "created in the perfect amount of days".

the number of the beast is another example: words in hebrew also could be directly translated to numbers, and the number of the beast could be represented as a name. As it so happens, Nero equals 666. Coincidence?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

One of the things followers are SUPPOSED to do is spread their faith.

This is the one thing i object to the most !!, i have no problem with people believing anything they want i mean its their life, what i do object to is them trying to force it on to me !

Guys like that are the only ones that really do it properly, and they can never give up on a sinner. As far as he's concerned, as long as you are taking them, there's a chance that you can be dragged from the cesspool of sin it is stuck in.

Guys like that are the most deluded of the lot, firstly assuming that the rest of us non-believers are stuck in a cesspool of sin in the first place, and secondly assuming that if even if we were that standing around on a street corner shouting out passages from some old book would change anything.

[System_Error]

the number of the beast is another example: words in hebrew also could be directly translated to numbers, and the number of the beast could be represented as a name. As it so happens, Nero equals 666. Coincidence?

Revelation was written in greek. I'm sure if you play with numbers and grids enough, you could even match the newest nobel peace prize winner with 666.

[Davadvice]

I believe this is serious.
And I believe peoples beliefs [(god),(no god)] are serious!
no matter how thay voice there belief.

I love your username, but it's hardly worth a mention!!! (couldnt resist sorry !!!)

I will come back here in 10 years and this will still be getting discussed. I did think the "why do we hate the us " would have rumbled on but i now have this for entertainment.

[Jenner]

2 Peter 3:8 is the writer trying to cover his rear and explain why the lord is late in coming (2 Peter 3:4 for the bible thumpers out there). It has nothing to do with some magical time-frame shift of reference. I've heard better excuses from my coworkers why assignments are late. I can't wait for one of them to come up to me and say "Oh, it's due today? But one day is as three for me..."

Once again, scripture taken completely out of context. It's actually kinda funny, the whole 2 Peter 3 section, because here's the writer is put on the spot with the question "Ok, so when is this last days stuff supposed to happen and when exactly is the lord coming, because you've been saying "soon" for way too long..." and it's a huge cover his rear speech followed by doom and gloom for non-believers; the same thing you'd hear a bum wearing a cardboard "end of the world is neigh" billboard, screaming at passerby's on the streets of Manhattan.

[5ms?]

This is the one thing i object to the most !!, i have no problem with people believing anything they want i mean its their life, what i do object to is them trying to force it on to me !



Guys like that are the most deluded of the lot, firstly assuming that the rest of us non-believers are stuck in a cesspool of sin in the first place, and secondly assuming that if even if we were that standing around on a street corner shouting out passages from some old book would change anything.

NeedSomeAnswers

I needed to repeat your post this gos for me to!

[5ms?]

People who are unwilling to judge faith is the source of many problems.

Why can't you judge "God", at least as he is portrayed in your Holy Book?
If God can kill innocent people (Job's Family) for the purposes of showing his power or testing a single man's faith, then how is he considered just and loving?

If God killed every human except Noah's family, how is that considered a just and loving god? Did Noah's family have to repopulate the Earth through inbreeding? I would estimate at least 10% of the population were small children that got drowned, and I doubt the majority of the people drowned did anything that really deserved death, probably some subjective sin like pre-marital sex or not going to temple on Saturday (all of which the Bible/Torah has said is punishable by death).

Sit down, read through every passage that has violence in it. Does that sound like a just God or is it written by ancient peoples making up stories to control their people and keep them in their "faith"?

You are wrong, you can judge, 'they may judge', one of, the two God's they believe in.

[LaVolpe]

... This is the one thing i object to the most !!, i have no problem with people believing anything they want i mean its their life, what i do object to is them trying to force it on to me !

I am agnostic (a fence sitter) leaning towards atheism.

People that shout their beliefs are not forcing anything on you or me. You are not being tied down and brainwashed. You could very easily just ignore them or walk in a different direction. Same scenario if a parade was marching down main street. You can stop, look and listen or take a different route.

What would you have society do? Tell religious fanatics that shouting from their soap boxes is illegal and cannot be done? Then stop where, dictating to all colleges exactly what they can teach? Telling all scientists exactly what they can research? Dictating exactly what gets printed/aired in every possible medium? The world has been there from time to time, wasn't a pretty time then and wouldn't be now either.

When all TV and radio stations you receive are shouting the same religious beliefs, when newspapers, books and magazines pages are all printed with the same religious beliefs, when you are required to attend daily prayers or go to jail, then those beliefs are being forced on you. The book 1984 comes to mind.

As a non-believer myself, listening/hearing to others' arguments/beliefs has never truly bothered me. Whether you are a believer that refuses to listen to other religions/atheists arguments or whether you are a non-believer that refuses to listen to religious arguments, I categorize all of you as the same: close minded and biased, regardless of religious beliefs.

[5ms?]

People that shout their beliefs are not forcing anything on you or me. You are not being tied down and brainwashed. You could very easily just ignore them or walk in a different direction. Same scenario if a parade was marching down main street. You can stop, look and listen or take a different route.

People that shout
I believe shouting is wrong.

And I believe they are trying to force something on me and you.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

What would you have society do? Tell religious fanatics that shouting from their soap boxes is illegal

Hell no enough things are illegal already without adding more to the list.

People that shout their beliefs are not forcing anything on you or me. You are not being tied down and brainwashed. You could very easily just ignore them or walk in a different direction. Same scenario if a parade was marching down main street. You can stop, look and listen or take a different route.

Ok so they may not be actually forcing in the true sense of the word but they are attempting to push there belief system on to others, but if you look at the quote i copied it said -

One of the things followers are SUPPOSED to do is spread their faith.

I was objecting to this in general rather then just the guy who stands in the middle of town shouting at people.

Also to clarify i am not into censorship i certainly don't think we should be banning people from saying what they like but it doesn't mean i have to agree with it.

I categorize all of you as the same: close minded and biased, regardless of religious beliefs.

what so am i in this category ? where have i refused to listen to others arguments, and i don't think you can use my recent post as an example i was merely professing a dislike for people trying to force beliefs on other.

Are you not being a bit close minded yourself ?

how do you know whether someone has listened to something and rejected it or not listened to it at all ?

and finally do you believe that sitting on the fence in an argument gives you the moral upperhand ?

[LaVolpe]

One of the things followers are SUPPOSED to do is spread their faith.

...I was objecting to this in general rather then just the guy who stands in the middle of town shouting at people.

Why object about people voicing their beliefs and attempting to spread "their" word? If this type of objection was supported by the entire world, I think the world would still be flat, the earth in the center of the universe, evolution would have a completely different meaning, and we'd all have one religion now (whichever destroyed the others) and, ironically, would then be forced upon all of us.

We as a people grow from many catalysts. Among them is the amazing ability to communicate different ideas and argue over those ideas. Once someone stops listening, then their ability to grow stops, in my opinion.

Also to clarify i am not into censorship i certainly don't think we should be banning people from saying what they like but it doesn't mean i have to agree with it.

And that's the beauty of it. You don't have to agree with it. Whether the reason is because you are so completely devoted to your beliefs (i.e., close-minded and biased) or whether you gave the idea some serious contemplation and came upon your decision, it was your choice. But people should still be able to voice their opinions even if it differs from yours.

However, before some mentions it, no I am not in favor of people voicing their opinions/beliefs that are so inherently perverse to the commonality of society. In other words, I do not promote beliefs in human sacrifices for example.

In cases where your society prevents or stunts your opinions, beliefs, ideas or bans the same, then I think you have 3 basic choices: 1) adapt, 2) leave, 3) contribute towards change (interpreted how you may).

....how do you know whether someone has listened to something and rejected it or not listened to it at all ?

I don't and cannot, how could I? It's their decision not mine. When someone argues/dismisses hard/proven evidence, then they are close-minded (world is flat example). When someone dismisses ideas simply because it came from a "certain type" of person or from a person with different religious beliefs, then they are biased.

....and finally do you believe that sitting on the fence in an argument gives you the moral upperhand ?

I am not discussing morality. I do not claim to be more or less moral than anyone else. Taking this statement: "This is the one thing i object to the most...what i do object to is them trying to force it on to me". I interpret that as, let them believe what they want and I don't want to hear about their beliefs. Sounds a tad close-minded to me. Maybe what I interpreted is not what you meant.

[5ms?]

Once someone starts shouting, they have stopped listening,
furthermore he who is shouting is close-minded.

There is nothing wrong with people voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas,
it is the way they go about it.

By shouting, I believe they are trying to force their opinions, beliefs or ideas on me and you.

[5ms?]

Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.

Suggestion:
Stop and listen to one of those shouting their beliefs, then tell them your beliefs, you'll see who is close-minded.

[5ms?]

LaVolpe
A lot of peoples minds are close to the hard/proven evidence that the world is still flat, and the earth is the center of the universe

[LaVolpe]

Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.

So, if opinion is expressed in writing or a soft voice that is ok, but a loud voice is not ok?

Suggestion:
Stop and listen to one of those shouting their beliefs, then tell them your beliefs, you'll see who is close-minded.

Those that are close-minded have historically promoted/expressed their beliefs as have those that are not. Have you stopped to listen to (not just heard) what was shouted? Have you taken that literature home and read it (not just looked at it)? Maybe, just maybe, those "closed-minded" shouters are shouting some truths? Maybe it isn't shouting or knocking on doors or handing out pamphlets that is troublesome, maybe it is anything that challenges your beliefs. And if that is true, then maybe you are now seeing yourself as biased or closed minded and that bothers you. And finally, if that is true, maybe you are now becoming more open minded and are growing again.

The above are rhetorical questions and statements to anyone and everyone.

LaVolpe
A lot of peoples minds are close to the hard/proven evidence that the world is still flat, and the earth is the center of the universe

Ignorance is another topic altogether, but can be a player in similar topics to this one too. But when one decides to stop growing and just exist, that is also their decision.

Edited: Before anyone accuses me of calling you ignorant, the above statement was not aimed directly at you. Also, most people find the word ignorant as offensive but unenlightened unoffensive even though it is a synonym for ignorant. One definition for ignorant: "the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed."

[5ms?]

Quote:Me
Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.
End Quote.

LaVolpe reply

So, if opinion is expressed in writing or a soft voice that is ok, but a loud voice is not ok?

So, if opinion is expressed in writing or a soft voice that is ok.

Yes, why not?

Quote:Me
There is nothing wrong with people voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas,
it is the way they go about it.
End Quote

And why not, voicing their opinions in writing, on tv, net and so on?

Originally, did not say "loud voice", Originally, that shouting is not ok.
And
Quote:Me
Once someone starts shouting, they have stopped listening,
furthermore he who is shouting is close-minded.
End Quote.

And again
Suggestion:
Stop and listen!, listen!, listen!, listen! to one of those shouting their beliefs, then give them your opinion, you'll see who is close-minded, See if they will listen to you.

Quote:LaVolpe
Those that are close-minded have historically promoted/expressed their beliefs as have those that are not.
End Quote.

This true!
But!!!
Those that are close-minded have historically promoted/expressed their beliefs the loudest

Shouting is one-way communication, so as to force their opinions on you.

And finally, if that is true, maybe They are now becoming less open minded and have stopped growing.

[Lord Orwell]

and finally do you believe that sitting on the fence in an argument gives you the moral upperhand ?

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Once someone starts shouting, they have stopped listening,
furthermore he who is shouting is close-minded.

By shouting, I believe they are trying to force their opinions, beliefs or ideas on me and you.

Your first sentence is hearsay, and your second implies that someone standing in the middle of a square shouldn't be able to have people hear him.

Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.

Suggestion:
Stop and listen to one of those shouting their beliefs, then tell them your beliefs, you'll see who is close-minded.

It's not censorship. That's written or published works. It's violation of Freedom of Speech and it is grounds for jailtime.

Revelation was written in greek. I'm sure if you play with numbers and grids enough, you could even match the newest nobel peace prize winner with 666.

Doubtful. The reason you can do it is their alphabet, every letter has a value to it.

2 Peter 3:8 is the writer trying to cover his rear and explain why the lord is late in coming (2 Peter 3:4 for the bible thumpers out there). It has nothing to do with some magical time-frame shift of reference.
Once again, scripture taken completely out of context.

that particular passage is actually talking about people that will begin to appear in the final days and ask those questions, not about people already asking them.
Finally, nowhere in the bible does it say he created the universe in 6 days. It said he created the earth and surrounding area. Obviously something existed before that or there wouldn't have been him.

[5ms?]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ms? View Post
Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.

Suggestion:
Stop and listen to one of those shouting their beliefs, then tell them your beliefs, you'll see who is close-minded.
It's not censorship. That's written or published works. It's violation of Freedom of Speech and it is grounds for jailtime.

Don't you mien, It's in violation of Freedom of shouting.

[System_Error]

Doubtful. The reason you can do it is their alphabet, every letter has a value to it.

Again, revelations was written in greek, not hebrew. The greek sum is 552.

Also, you doubted Obama can be tied to 666:

Barack Hussein Obama is 18 characters - which can be calculated with 6+6+6. Imagine that.

A quick google search also shows that Jesus = 666 in alphanumeric base 9 code.


So who is the real 666? The possibilities are endless.

[5ms?]

Lord Orwell

You think this sentence implies that someone standing in the middle of a square shouldn't be able to have people hear him.

By shouting, I believe they are trying to force their opinions, beliefs or ideas on me and you.

O..K..

[System_Error]

Stop and listen to one of those shouting their beliefs, then tell them your beliefs, you'll see who is close-minded.

I think it would be you. Rather than listening, you would merely be practicing patience until it's your turn to talk. On the other hand, it is in the best interest of the "shouter" to fully listen so they can respond accordingly...

Stopping someone shouting their opinions, beliefs or ideas is not censorship.
Stopping someone voicing their opinions, beliefs or ideas is censorship.

You can voice an opinion with a shout.

[penagate]

Whether you are a believer that refuses to listen to other religions/atheists arguments or whether you are a non-believer that refuses to listen to religious arguments, I categorize all of you as the same: close minded and biased, regardless of religious beliefs.

There's nothing wrong with having a closed mind. It stops junk getting in.

[5ms?]

I think it would be you. Rather than listening, you would merely be practicing patience until it's your turn to talk. On the other hand, it is in the best interest of the "shouter" to fully listen so they can respond accordingly...

You can't listen when you are shouting.

And I personally, find it very difficult to propose an opposite view if I do not listen to the view I'm opposing.

[5ms?]

There's nothing wrong with having a closed mind. It stops junk getting in.

Bang on

[MartinLiss]

I don't personally believe in God but I have no problem with people that do. I do think however that it's quite foolish to believe, as some people do, that the bible is the literal word of God. The bible (particularly the old testament) has been translated from one language to another several times, and, given human biases it's unlikely that the text is the same now as it was originally. Also even if the words have been strictly translated I'm sure there are many cases where the meaning of the word(s) have changed.

[LaVolpe]

There's nothing wrong with having a closed mind. It stops junk getting in.

And unfortunatley for many, prevents letting junk out. Maybe a well-balanced closed mind ain't so bad

[dee-u]

If heaven is true and I will go there and don't see you guys there then I will be saddened, that's why I need to spread my belief to you guys. =)

[BadgerBadger]

If heaven is true and I will go there and don't see you guys there then I will be saddened, that's why I need to spread my belief to you guys. =)

Come to hell with the rest of us.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

La Volpe, i think you are making some far reaching assumptions here, firstly just because i don't like something doesn't mean that i want to censor it or am closed to. Dislike is exactly what it is nothing more or less.

Also you seem to think that because some people here don't agree with believers that we don't listen or are closed minded.

I don't agree with them because from my learning, either through reading or experience i have looked at the available evidence and formed an opinion, but that does not mean i am closed minded, if new evidence come up which challenges my beliefs then i am more then happy to take it on board and alter my beliefs.

It happens in Science all the time, someone makes a hypothesis and tries to prove it through tests and evidence. Sometime they succeed to the point where we have generally accepted theories like Gravity which no-one disputes, others have in the past argued that the world is flat which many people believed for a long time until someone was able to come along and prove otherwise.

Anyway my point is that i am happy to re-evaluate my beliefs in the face of new evidence is it this that makes me closed minded ?

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Well put !

[capsulecorpjx]

If heaven is true and I will go there and don't see you guys there then I will be saddened, that's why I need to spread my belief to you guys. =)

Is there a Hell?

If we go to Hell merely for not believing, would you think that's overkill on God's part?

Or do you not believe in Hell?

[Lord Orwell]

Is there a Hell?

If we go to Hell merely for not believing, would you think that's overkill on God's part?

Or do you not believe in Hell?

hell isn't even in the old testament. the evil angels were cast to the earth, not hell.

[5ms?]

So capsulecorpjx you'll have to stay on earth like the rest of us.

Sorry!!!

[EntityX]

First post in this thread was July 29. Just under 100 days since first post and this thread is up to 273 posts. Averaging around 2.7 posts per day for over 3 months. This may win the prize for most popular thread in 2009 or I would think it's among the most popular. Anyone have a list handy of most popular chit chat threads. I remember that Photographography thread had quite a few posts in it a while back.

[abhijit]

First post in this thread was July 29. Just under 100 days since first post and this thread is up to 273 posts. Averaging around 2.7 posts per day for over 3 months. This may win the prize for most popular thread in 2009 or I would think it's among the most popular. Anyone have a list handy of most popular chit chat threads. I remember that Photographography thread had quite a few posts in it a while back.

That would be this thread.

You should try to change you settings to list all threads from the beginning and then click on the replies column header.

[Shaggy Hiker]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Sounds like a Rush to judgement

[Shaggy Hiker]

As it so happens, Nero equals 666. Coincidence?

Makes sense to me. The latest version has certainly caused me torment.

[EntityX]

That would be this thread.

You should try to change you settings to list all threads from the beginning and then click on the replies column header.

The Post Race thread would be the most popular but I was talking about the most popular thread in 2009. The Post Race had less than 80 posts made in it during 2009 so this thread would be more popular than that in 2009 though using the technique you suggest one could probably easily find what thread was most popular in 2009 and what thread that was started in 2009 was most popular which may or may not be the same thread.

[FunkyDexter]

I think Volpe has stated my position better than I could myself. Personally I'm agnostic and, while I don't believe for second that that gives me any moral high ground I will claim that it does give a slightly broader perspective. And from this perspective the worst of the atheists seem to be just as shrill, stubborn and close minded as the worst of the theists. In fact, they generally appear to be worse.

To be honest, Dee-U invited it with the title of the thread but I'm talking generally, not just this thread. There is a culture of proselytizing atheist's who seem to think that it is their duty to convince theists that they are wrong, delusional or possibly just plain mad if they believe in a God. They are happy to argue their own beliefs and try to convince others that their position is the correct one and I applaud that. But it is these same people who are the first to be offended when a theist returns the favour. Can you seriously not see the hypocracy of that position? I have absolutley no objection to someone trying to convince me that there is no God but I do find it bizarre when that same person takes it as an affront when some else tries to convince them that there is one.

It might seem that I'm siding with the theists here, and I probably am, but only because I see the atheists shouting far louder that the theists and I've always been cursed with an urge to challenge those who shout. If you don't believe that the atheists are the shriller group then take a step back from you're beliefs for a bit, allow yourself to accept that there is a possibility, however unproven, of a God and then read this thread again. You'll find it to be pretty one sided on the whole.

A few things I'd like to add:-
1. While it's true that shouting is a one way form of communication so is talking, whispering and, indeed, posting on forums. Two way forms of communication include conversing, debating, arguing and engaging. Volume is irrelevent.
2. When measured alongside the track record of nations that have mandated a religion, that of nations which have mandated atheism really does not stack up well. The latter include Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Not exactly the highest paragons of virtue.
3. Censorship, while often abused, is an entirely necessary and desirable mechanism in society. I, for one, have no desire to see poedophillia re-enacted on BBC primetime. I specify re-enacted to separate the sensationalising such a thing from the act itself which would, of course would be illegal if carried out for real; rendering any debate about censorship moot. Now that's obviously an extreme example but does serve to debunk the blanket belief that censorship is neccessarily a bad thing. Where you draw the line between the extremes is really a matter of opinion but I personally don't believe our society (UK) has benefited by the more licentious aproach we've adopted in the last 20 years or so and is, in fact, rather the worse for it. Whether that applies elsewhere in the world I have no idea.
4. While it is entirely possible to pull passages out of the bible, koran, torah or any other religious books that appear to demonstrate that the assosciated religion is evil, violent and warlike, to do so while disregarding the overriding arc of these works, which is invariably about forgiving, helping and generally being nice to each other demonstrates a willful desire to miss the point.


edit>

This may win the prize for most popular thread in 2009

Personally I'd vote for it to be moved into World Events. It's deader than Zoroastrianism (wouldn't you just love a religion that worshipped Zorro?) in there and I'm not really sure this thread still constitutes 'Chit Chat'

edit a bit more>Shaggy, there are some countries where you're puns would get you stoned... and not in the hippy sense either. Thank your anthropomorphisised concept of choice that you live in the US.

[EntityX]

I just tried what you suggested abhijit and if I'm not mistaken this thread is the most posted in Chit Chat thread for a thread that was started in 2009 and it's also the most posted in during 2009 of any Chit Chat thread. You might have a thread with thousands of posts but only a small number of the posts were made during 2009. This thread is 68th(if I counted correctly) on the list of Chit Chat threads with most replies.

[Shaggy Hiker]

4. While it is entirely possible to pull passages out of the bible, koran, torah or any other religious books that appear to demonstrate that the assosciated religion is evil, violent and warlike, to do so while disregarding the overriding arc of these works, which is invariably about forgiving, helping and generally being nice to each other demonstrates a willful desire to miss the point.

Pulling passages out of any or all is what most religious debate is about, and it always has been. The entire fight over the heresy of Arius, which led to the Nicean Creed has to do with trying to reconcile a handful of individual sentences. All the use of the bible to support slavery, attack homosexuality, attack slavery, support women, repress women, and so forth, is nothing but grabbing individual sentences, taking them out of context, and fitting them into a modern context. The whole debate is over sentences. Heck, the book is divided up so that you can reference single phrases. Why would they allow you to simply address (in the programming sense) such small scale elements of the book if you were never to work with such small scale elements?

and not in the hippy sense either.

If you hadn't added that, I would have made a further quip.