DOS Games Discussion

I am not 'religious', because that would mean that I have every single religion "going on", and serve multiple gods.... I am but a Christian, doing God's work. I serve the One God who created the heavens and the earth, the Alpha and Omega.
Here's the question: Are you religious?

And, here's some insight for all Christians and non-Christians; even antichristians:

I'm a devout athiest.
I feel that all religions with the exeption of the ones void of dieties can be disproved with logic and science.

Does logic and science have 100% of all knowledge that exists anywhere and everywhere?

Come on now, it's like a goldfish in a fish tank claiming that there's nothing outside the fish tank.

No, but neither does religion. Just because some folks think the earth is on the back of a turtle doesn't make it true, it's just a simple myth people make up to explain things they don't know.

That's a fairly dumb simile since the goldfish could easily determine that there is existance outside of the tank if it wasn't for the fact that their attention span only lasts 3 seconds. The main argument for their being a god seems to be "you don't need proof, just faith" but that's a silly argument because you might as well say "I am Zorkar, Emperor of Mars and Enslaver of Venusian Women" and when someone questions you, just yell at them for not having faith.

There's tons of scientific evidence that disproves any religion involving gods. I can kind of understand people who take the bible metaphorically and ignore the crazy things is says (like killing anyone who works on Sundays). What I don't get are fundamentalists who believe everything in the bible is literal truth, it contradicts itself and has too many inacuracies for that to be true.

Venator wrote:Does logic and science have 100% of all knowledge that exists anywhere and everywhere?

Yes, whether you like it or not.

I believe that all religions initially began as philosophies and guidelines for living a healthy life. However, since many people back then were so lost in their lives (still are these days) they took it way too seriously thus the initial concept has been lost in time. To me a lot of the stuff in the bible really did start out as philosophy and guidelines with plenty of metaphors and stories to give light to the subject, like pictures in a science textbook. This was in the old testament but as soon as the new testament rolled around it pretty much reflected the change of the times, people got desperate. Contradiction was quite abundant.

This is why I only look into the teachings of taoism and zen buddhism. Not much of gods involved, just fleshed out philosophy and interesting ways to look at life. Also, I don't believe in labeling myself based on a belief. I'm a human being much like everyone else.

Does logic and science have 100% of all knowledge that exists anywhere and everywhere?

Yes, whether you like it or not.

Science does not, first of all because there is still quite a lot that science cannot explain yet, and secondly because there is a lot that science may never be able to explain.

Consciousness, for example. The required textbook for my "Cognitive Neuropsychology" course at university was the book "The Undiscovered Mind" by John Horton. It explains why many scientists believe that human consciousness may never be understood.

Its also worth noting that science can explain the "how"s of the world, but the deeper "why"s. Thats where faith comes in. Faith and science are not necessarily diametrically opposed. Its just that they often deal with different things. Love could be explained scientificly by talking about the complex chemical reactions and so on that occur in the brain. But I doubt that anyone (theists, scientists, and athiests included) truly believe that concepts such as love can be explained by science and logic.

That's a fairly dumb simile since the goldfish could easily determine that there is existance outside of the tank if it wasn't for the fact that their attention span only lasts 3 seconds.

Some would suggest that the attention span of out current generation is approximately 3 seconds. (Heh sorry just had to throw that in there!)

I feel that all religions with the exeption of the ones void of dieties can be disproved with logic and science. ..... There's tons of scientific evidence that disproves any religion involving gods.

We should be careful here with our terms. I doubt that many people today seriously believe in polytheism, ie "gods". I would be interested in hearing how science can disprove God's existance. (Singular, in the monotheism sense.) From my understanding, it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, whether it be using philisophical or scientific arguments. I've read some debates between theists and athiests and the athiests usually make a disclaimer during their opening remarks that they cannot conclusively disprove God's existence. This is why athiesm is often considered a faith of its own, since its main belief cannot be proven.

As far as science disproving God's existance, a recent book by Lee Strobel (former athiest, Yale Law School educated and former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune) called The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God, investigates modern scientific findings that actually point towards God's existance by interviewing scientists regarding many diverse fields, such as cosmology, biology, astronomy, physics, etc.

I believe that all religions initially began as philosophies and guidelines for living a healthy life.

If all religions are just philosophies, then I want no part of them. If the Bible is a made up book of stories and flights of fantasy ... if Jesus was not risen, then there's no reason to believe it over any other faith. But the fact is that, in my opinion, a world where God exists is preferrable to one where God does not. Of course, this brings up the question of "Who's right?" Theres a whole bunch of religions out there: Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, "New Age", Mormonism, Muslim, Hindu ... even Scientology. But for me the things that separates Christianity from other faiths are threefold (I am referring here to the NT, I do not know as much about the OT):

1) Historical reliability (that what we read today is the same as when it was written, that the texts were written in a very close time period to when the events occurred, etc.)

2) Jesus (that Jesus was a unique figure in history and no other head religious figure even comes close)

3) Grace (that no other religion teaches grace ... and that it is the most important doctrine in Christianity or any other type of faith)

I'm working on a long essay / book that delves more deeply into these topics ... but since I've already gone off on a bit of a tangent here I won't go into more detail just now.

Anyways, the original point of this post was to point out that God's existance cannot be disproven, via science or otherwise. Got a bit sidetracked there Of course, not being able to 100% disprove something does not mean it exists. Just because we cannot 100% disprove that unicorns exist doesn't mean that they do. But there are good reasons to believe that God exists, and in my opinion they do outweigh the evidence against.

emmzee wrote:

I believe that all religions initially began as philosophies and guidelines for living a healthy life.

If all religions are just philosophies, then I want no part of them.

The key word was initially began. But on topic, either way thank goodness that my words were of my own personal opinion. Not trying to start anything.

I am not 'religious', because that would mean that I have every single religion "going on", and serve multiple gods....

Um, according to dictionary.com (and practically everything else ), that's not what "religious" means at all.

There's tons of scientific evidence that disproves any religion involving gods.

I don't know of any evidence that disproves God. Gives alternate possibilities, yes, but that doesn't make the theory of God illogical.

What I don't get are fundamentalists who believe everything in the bible is literal truth, it contradicts itself and has too many inacuracies for that to be true.

Have you actually read the Bible, or are you just relying on what you've heard? If it's the former, please show me one contradiction. If it's the latter, please shut up.

Besides, it seems rather silly to use contradictions as an excuse for disproving the Bible if you put the amount of faith it appears you do in science. Or do you believe that all scientists agree on the evolutionary process? Or even the theory of evolution to begin with?

Sidenote:

Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, "New Age", Mormonism, Muslim, Hindu ... even Scientology.

Now, now, emmzee, let's not get snarky. I know I wouldn't want you rolling your eyes at my religion. Also, I believe by their own definition and classification (and if we're not going to mind their definitions while discussing them, who's definitions should we use?), LDS falls under "Christianity".

Da_Goat wrote:

There's tons of scientific evidence that disproves any religion involving gods.

I don't know of any evidence that disproves God. Gives alternate possibilities, yes, but that doesn't make the theory of God illogical.

This website disproves all Yaweh-based religions.

What I don't get are fundamentalists who believe everything in the bible is literal truth, it contradicts itself and has too many inacuracies for that to be true.

Have you actually read the Bible, or are you just relying on what you've heard? If it's the former, please show me one contradiction. If it's the latter, please shut up.

I actually have read the bible (well, I stoped at the part of the New Testament where they just write letters to churches and boring stuff like that, it was more dull than reading all those measurments for stuff in the Old Testament). You want an example of a contradiction? Jesus was a popular guy, so popular that the Roman government had to capture him in a sneaky manner. Then when they ask the people if they want him to go free, they decide it would be better to release some random other guy. What's up with that!?
Do you really think that the world was made in seven days and that dinosours never existed? Dinosours don't fit in with the fundamentalist view because humans were already alive after less than a week since the world began. You could say that dinosours and humans lived at the same time for a while but radioactive dating proves otherwise.
This disproves Noah's Ark.

Besides, it seems rather silly to use contradictions as an excuse for disproving the Bible if you put the amount of faith it appears you do in science. Or do you believe that all scientists agree on the evolutionary process? Or even the theory of evolution to begin with?

Read these. Scientists really do believe in evolution. Fossil evidence alone proves evolution, unless you think radioactive dating is wrong and that all other forms of humans and animals died in "the great flood" or something (which the above link disproves). There's also the ice ages for which there is massive geological evidence for but go against the bible.

Have you ever heard of "1 day for man, yet a thousand unto God"

A dinosaur could become self-extinct if that was... never mind. This is already interesting enough. Science has actually proven Noahs Ark all the way to Jesus... but I guess you never watched "Mysteries of the Bible" on A&E... So if you want to disprove a little more, there's PROOF for the disproof... figure

As far as religious goes, I was referring to some people who think that that is what it means.

I actually have read the bible (well, I stoped at the part of the New Testament where they just write letters to churches and boring stuff like that, it was more dull than reading all those measurments for stuff in the Old Testament).

That's a shame. The letters are really what tie a lot of the Bible together.

Jesus was a popular guy, so popular that the Roman government had to capture him in a sneaky manner. Then when they ask the people if they want him to go free, they decide it would be better to release some random other guy. What's up with that!?

What? Which Bible did you read? The majority of the Jews did have a problem with Jesus throughout the New Testament. And are you trying to say that Jesus never existed? Because, while it's true no direct evidence has ever been found, most historians (Christians, atheists, or otherwise) do believe he lived.

Dinosours don't fit in with the fundamentalist view because humans were already alive after less than a week since the world began. You could say that dinosours and humans lived at the same time for a while but radioactive dating proves otherwise.

...
Of course dinosaurs existed. While a few believe to the contrary, most Christian denominations do not take the week-long creation literally. As radray pointed out, 2 Peter 3:8 (one of those letters you found too boring to read) compares a single day to a thousand in God's eyes. This, too, could easily have been used to imply that God's view of time is monumentally broader than any human's.

Scientists really do believe in evolution. Fossil evidence alone proves evolution, unless you think radioactive dating is wrong and that all other forms of humans and animals died in "the great flood" or something (which the above link disproves). There's also the ice ages for which there is massive geological evidence for but go against the bible.

Yes, most scientists do believe in evolution. But even then, there are numerous disagreements about how evolution could come about. If you look at the original Darwinian theory, and then at the most widely-accepted belief in evolution today, many of the teachings are incredibly different.

Another area that most scientists can't agree on is the Big Bang. Was it the first occurence, or was it merely another universe in a whole chain of universes, stretching infintely back in time? If it was the latter, that could explain what God was doing during his existence.

I wasn't trying to say that Jesus didn't exist, just that it's a weird thing to happen. Many Jews hated him but I was under the impression that more liked him. I'm pretty sure Jesus was a real guy, just not exactly as the bible made him seem.

As for the week-long creation not being literal; as I said in my first post that I can understand people who think the bible is metaphorical and not ment to be taken literally. Literalists are the people who think it happend just as described, dinosours didn't exist (I've met someone who thinks they're elephant/buffalo bones put together wrong), man hasn't changed over the tens of thousands of years we've existed (cro-magnon and neanderthals were the same as us), there was no ice age (or just one in the planet's history), day and night would exist even without the sun (god created them before he made the sun, which is basically a timepeice for us) and other silly things. Besides the "one day = 1000 years to god" argument doesn't work because the bible was written by humans, not god.

Evolution is proven by fossils of things we know to have evolved. Without evolution you can't explain many species that existed in the past that are similar yet different to modern species (like that tiny horse thing). Evolution doesn't really go against the bible if you take it metaphorically though.

Yes, the creation of the universe is a grey area for everyone. I have to question the big bang because I don't know where the two giant masses of matter and anti-matter came from. I question the religious thing because it's logical to assume God came from somewhere, complete omipotence is something I can't quite wrap my brain around. How long did he wait before he created the earth and stuff like that?


Off topic: I like how this thread is going. Most other forums don't allow debates like this.

But God spoke to these writers. Also, these writers were very much like you and me (the only difference is that they had 100% of God's attention. That's still possible today... also, they were sinners, just like you and me.)

The only reason they have the big bang theory is that they don't know the truth... Ask your science teacher if he/she knows God (I know mine got all stiff about it)...

What really interests me is the fact that they can prove all this stuff, yet they can't prove this big bang... theories... guess what? A lot of old scientists have made error on theory, because there is always a new discovery to correct it. Maybe it's time they actually read the bible... I doubt they have ever.

My view of God is that something created me, whether it was some sort of galactic being that gave me life, or just evolution of star dust. Either way really, God to me is just the universe. I'm Catholic, though not very "religious," and went to a Catholic school, so science is completely acceptable until it contradicts teachings of the Bible, which to my knowledge, it has yet to do. And I really doubt it ever will since the Bible can be interpreted in so many ways, it can be made to fit with anything science proves or discovers.

<html><a href=http://www.dosgames.com/forum/viewtopic ... .html>This thread</a></html> might be useful for further insight. (Note, it actually turns into the religion thread around page 5)

Edit: And, for some weird reason, it won't let me leave page 1. That's just spooky...

That is creepy, DB. You can still hit reply, which reviews some of the recent posts.

http://www.dosgames.com/forum/viewtopic ... rt-60.html

That *does* seem to work... dunno what's different.

radray11 wrote:But God spoke to these writers. Also, these writers were very much like you and me (the only difference is that they had 100% of God's attention. That's still possible today... also, they were sinners, just like you and me.)

The only reason they have the big bang theory is that they don't know the truth... Ask your science teacher if he/she knows God (I know mine got all stiff about it)...

What really interests me is the fact that they can prove all this stuff, yet they can't prove this big bang... theories... guess what? A lot of old scientists have made error on theory, because there is always a new discovery to correct it. Maybe it's time they actually read the bible... I doubt they have ever.

God spoke to the all of the bible's authors? Not likely, even in the eyes of fundamentalists. I was under impression that there were only a few prophets, like Moses or Mohammad. That brings me to another point; why Christianity instead of Islam or Mormon (both are just Judaism v3.0 like Christianity is v2.0)?

You can't ask a public school teacher about religion, they could get fired. I'm not in any science courses this semester at my university.

How can they "prove all this stuff"? Do you have any proof that the book of Genesis went as described? The old scientists who made errors in theory were because they basied their findings soully on the bible. People like Galleleo (who thought that the Earth went around the sun) were burned alive for their findinds based on observable fact. The church tends to be the enemy of scientific method.

null

Firstly, research before you speak... use BOTH pro and con when posting, and it's not like someone's going to be fired for their belief. Lastly, don't give biased opinions when you have no idea what being a Christian means (unless you already "studied" it)... second lastly: What do you believe in then? Prove that there is no God, no Jesus... (If your an atheist, you don't believe anything anyway, so don't bother to post)... give fact that God did not speak? Sorry, I worship a BOLD GOD who SPEAKS all the TIME!

And if you mention hell, which is nothing but pain and agony, what is on the other side of life? Where do you go when you die? I do believe that there is a purpose in life than just sitting around and arguing... do a little research. Perhaps go googling on the END TIMES...


Check out: http://www.meaning-of-life.info/?source=adwords
Also: http://www.prophecyupdate.com/
Also, if you don't believe in change...
http://www.breakthroughnet.com/welcome.html