General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Page 8: Religion thread

or track by Email or RSS


tHeBoYmUsTdIe

Avatar for tHeBoYmUsTdIe

1530 posts
Joined 01/2010

@Sneakers

But that is still your belief system, theory, hypothesis. You have no way to prove this.
You are trying to be "rational" by using "science" as your reference, but the "Big Bang" is still a theory (belief).



Don't be ridiculous. Is the theory of gravity a belief? No, it's a fact. Just like evolution, the atom and the big bang. Facts. And provable ones.

Scientific theories differ from metaphysical or philosophical ones in that they use inductive rather than deductive reasoning. This means they are empirical, testable and observable.

Posted over 3 years ago

mastertex

Avatar for mastertex

529 posts
Joined 03/2008

Right ok, so acceptance of Christ is the key element. How does Christ suffering physical pain for a day or so somehow make up for the sins of billions of people throughout thousands of years? If it was his death. wasn't he gonna die anyway?

How can horrific crimes forced on children be 'forgiven' because someone else gets beaten up and crucified? How can it at all? If you do a crime, is it moral or ethical in any way for you to even allow someone else to take the punishment for you?

I just killed this guy and stole a bunch of money that wasn't mine. It's ok! Just beat up and kill that other totally innocent guy, then I can be forgiven...What!?

This kind of morality and behavior we wouldn't even expect from an underdeveloped child, let alone the god of the bloody universe.



Accepting Jesus is not the goal. Believing in him with everything you are and trying to be like him with everything you are is the goal. If you are doing that then you will not try to sin. You will end up sinning one some level. As all man is incapable of not sinning on some level.
You can be forgiven for anything you did as Jesus died for you sins. All one has to do is ask for it, ask to be born again, and then make the Bread(Jesus Christ) his main source. If a man says I admit to my sins and I believe in Christ and then says F'it I don't care about what I do he will still go to hell. If a man spent his whole life doing bad and sees the light at the end of his days and takes the Lord into his heart he can go to heaven. Get it?

Posted over 3 years ago

tHeBoYmUsTdIe

Avatar for tHeBoYmUsTdIe

1530 posts
Joined 01/2010

@mastertex

Accepting Jesus is not the goal. Believing in him with everything you are and trying to be like him with everything you are is the goal. If you are doing that then you will not try to sin. You will end up sinning one some level. As all man is incapable of not sinning on some level.
You can be forgiven for anything you did as Jesus died for you sins. All one has to do is ask for it, ask to be born again, and then make the Bread(Jesus Christ) his main source. If a man says I admit to my sins and I believe in Christ and then says F'it I don't care about what I do he will still go to hell. If a man spent his whole life doing bad and sees the light at the end of his days and takes the Lord into his heart he can go to heaven. Get it?



Rephrasing a doctrine I am already well aware of doesn't answer the gaping problems I brought up.

Posted over 3 years ago

Sneakers

Avatar for Sneakers

2022 posts
Joined 09/2009

@Sneakers
the limits of current scientific knowledge will always be where religion starts as it explains everything and nothing at the same time. but this is not a rational argument for god.
........


I think I have said it simple enough, so I am not sure where anyone would believe I make any "argument for a god" or against. I said that if I had to be "labeled", I am closest to being "agnostic".
I guess that is my best attempt to be neutral on the subject.

IMO, every belief system regarding the beginning of time, has to lean on faith, belief in something someone said, theories, and/or a "higher being".

NOTE: I am always amazed by the programs on TV that bring dinosaurs to life (cool animations). Quite often in the explanations, it seems that the scientist was right there -- and knows exactly how things happened between the different creatures. Interesting stuff IMO, but still just theories and ideas.....and I cannot believe it is all true (scientifically or historically speaking). BUT I bet that little kids start forming their "belief systems" by what the given scientist says happened.



.

Posted over 3 years ago

mastertex

Avatar for mastertex

529 posts
Joined 03/2008

@mastertex


Rephrasing a doctrine I am already well aware of doesn't answer the gaping problems I brought up.



Would anything? The only way some people would believe is if he came down from heaven and did some parlor tricks. The Bible tells of a time (im my best guess not to far) when a man will use this very tactic to get great power over people. This is why it is a poor way to judge the whole thing.

Posted over 3 years ago

tHeBoYmUsTdIe

Avatar for tHeBoYmUsTdIe

1530 posts
Joined 01/2010

NOTE: I am always amazed by the programs on TV that bring dinosaurs to life (cool animations). Quite often in the explanations, it seems that the scientist was right there -- and knows exactly how things happened between the different creatures. Interesting stuff IMO, but still just theories and ideas.....and I cannot believe it is all true (scientifically or historically speaking).



Lol, you think they just come up with these apparently bullshit ideas sitting on the toilet and throw their ideas at a graphic artist who brings them to life?

Science doesn't work that way. I'm surprised at how many people think it does.

Not at all. They use as much information as they can to come to the conclusions they do, from muscular-skeletal recreations (yes, math and physics are involved in this) to fossil evidence to logic to whatever other corroborating evidence they can find. It might not be perfect (no scientific 'theory' is) but it's pretty friggin close.

Think of it like this. Two people are murdered, one of which is your recently ex-wife. Your blood is found at the scene, and their blood is found in your vehicle, your driveway, and your house which is about 2 miles away. You have a large gash on your middle finger which you freely admit you got the night of the murder but 'can't remember' how. Shoe prints are found at the scene of the crime from a very rare brand of shoes. There are pictures showing you wearing said shoes. You were well known to police during your relationship as a domestic abuser, and were known to have a jealous streak. The man killed along with your wife was an attractive and well built younger white man. When charged with their murder, you get a cheap disguise you purchased two weeks before their deaths and $15 000 in cash and your passport and lead police on a low-speed chase threatening to kill yourself.

A couple years later, you write a book called 'If I did it' in which you explain in detail how the murders would have happened if you had committed them.

Yes, you can't prove formally that you committed the crime but it's pretty goddamn sure that you did!

Posted over 3 years ago

StueysKid

Avatar for StueysKid

1018 posts
Joined 11/2009

If the English word "Christ" comes from the greek word Christos, did the Greeks have this word specifically chosen for the eventual messiah or did the word have a use and function before being written in the Bible?

I'd be surprised if christos was used to describe a healer other than in the biblical context.

Posted over 3 years ago

Sneakers

Avatar for Sneakers

2022 posts
Joined 09/2009

Lol, you think they just come up with these apparently bullshit ideas sitting on the toilet and throw their ideas at a graphic artist who brings them to life?

Science doesn't work that way. I'm surprised at how many people think it does.

Not at all. They use as much information as they can to come to the conclusions they do, from muscular-skeletal recreations (yes, math and physics are involved in this) to fossil evidence to logic to whatever other corroborating evidence they can find. It might not be perfect (no scientific 'theory' is) but it's pretty friggin close.


Damn! Like I said "the little kids start forming their belief systems". "It has to be true. It was on TV"
or "Someone ( not "sitting on the toilet") said it was true".

Dude, am probably the most neutral guy on this subject (at least I really try to be).
But you are very militant in your beliefs on this topic IMO. That makes me wary of that viewpoint.
Sorry. Not going to bite the bait, and go into the "You are wrong. I am right" thing you are doing with others.

My belief system is still open to both sides. My own doubts are about how each side argues for/against their strong beliefs. Not sure how to make that clear. Undecided

/me posting on this particular DC topic. LOL

Posted over 3 years ago

mastertex

Avatar for mastertex

529 posts
Joined 03/2008

Lol, you think they just come up with these apparently bullshit ideas sitting on the toilet and throw their ideas at a graphic artist who brings them to life?

Science doesn't work that way. I'm surprised at how many people think it does.

Not at all. They use as much information as they can to come to the conclusions they do, from muscular-skeletal recreations (yes, math and physics are involved in this) to fossil evidence to logic to whatever other corroborating evidence they can find. It might not be perfect (no scientific 'theory' is) but it's pretty friggin close.



Im guessing you are young. Actually sometimes that is the very thing that happens. No man is biased 100%. So no science is 100% perfect. Much of it is total crap. You ever watch TV? How many commercials you see in the USA? There are almost as many lawsuit commecials on past "approved" medicine as there are for new ones. Every wonder why that is? People who make the drugs- doctors(who are scientists in a sort) and Scientist want the stuff to sell so they work for a good company and can pay for little Sally and Bobby to go to a good school and they can have a nice retirement. This does not make for an unbiased man or woman. The scientist that get paid by BP isn't the best guy wo ask if the oil spill is going to have a negative impact or not. The scientist getting paid by some green group is not the best to ask where the line should be drawn on trying to keep the Earth livable and still meeting modern realities. Something to think about.

Another point is- Science has been wrong many many times and will be again many many times. So why say it is the truth somewhere on that time line? Seems like a bad bet.

Posted over 3 years ago

"GLUIPERIG"

Avatar for "GLUIPERIG"

1607 posts
Joined 01/2011

Is anyone else getting tired of all this round and round we go discussion? Right, it's not perfect. But like Tex said, some people are just not going to believe until God comes back down and does parlor tricks. Because that's what he did when he sent Jesus. And instead of having bones to recreate muscular-skeletal forms, we have accounts/recollections of people that witnessed and experienced these parlor tricks with their own eyes. Some of us are able to believe these stories and some people need more information. Unfortunately, there's no other information that can be provided so I completely understand for one's contradictory belief.

Posted over 3 years ago

ItsRevi

Avatar for ItsRevi

111 posts
Joined 10/2010

Sigh. Yet again this thread has turned into a thinly veiled argument between the camps: 'We Christians' and 'We Atheists'.

In the first few pages there was some really golden posts that we thought provoking, yet not provocative. Now it's just like "LOL U CANT B SERIOUS: you're irrational, heres why - <text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text>"

"NO, we are not irrational, heres why: <text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text"

Who knew that a topic on Religon would end up in deadend replies, and more importantly, unresolved?

E: "GLUIPERIG" , didnt I read on the 5th page that you would stop posting?

But anyway, I really am done posting on this thread. I'll just keep reading everyone else's thoughts. I think there's only like 2-3 of us that actually believe in religion anyway so I'll let them post. Smile Cheers!


and the 10th..

Ok, I'm done with this thread. Cheers everyone.



yet here we are 13 pages later Smile?

Posted over 3 years ago

maglame

Avatar for maglame

1015 posts
Joined 04/2010

The strength of science lies in how easy it is to disprove a theory. Take evolution for example. We have incredible amounts of evidence that supports the theory, but if we even had one little piece of evidence to disprove it, evolution as a theory would fall. You don't need more evidence against than for a theory to say the theory is wrong. All you need is one little piece of evidence, and it all comes tumbling down.

This is why it's reasonable to say that evolution is true, that we know, and that it's a fact. It's reasonable because we can be proven wrong. And this is why it's not reasonable to say that God is true, that you know he is, and that it's a fact. Because it could never be proven wrong.

Posted over 3 years ago

tHeBoYmUsTdIe

Avatar for tHeBoYmUsTdIe

1530 posts
Joined 01/2010

Damn! Like I said "the little kids start forming their belief systems". "It has to be true. It was on TV"
or "Someone ( not "sitting on the toilet") said it was true".

Dude, am probably the most neutral guy on this subject (at least I really try to be).
But you are very militant in your beliefs on this topic IMO. That makes me very wary of that view.
Sorry. Not going to bite the bait, and go into the "You are wrong. I am right" thing you are doing with everyone.

My belief system is still open to both sides. My own doubts are about how each side argues for/against their strong beliefs. Not sure how to make that clear. Undecided



Sometimes I wonder if you are here just to arouse reactions and grab attention. ie: trolling

I really cannot understand how someone can claim that logic, reason and empiricism is a 'belief system.'

Posted over 3 years ago

tHeBoYmUsTdIe

Avatar for tHeBoYmUsTdIe

1530 posts
Joined 01/2010

Im guessing you are young. Actually sometimes that is the very thing that happens. No man is biased 100%. So no science is 100% perfect. Much of it is total crap. You ever watch TV? How many commercials you see in the USA? There are almost as many lawsuit commecials on past "approved" medicine as there are for new ones. Every wonder why that is? People who make the drugs- doctors(who are scientists in a sort) and Scientist want the stuff to sell so they work for a good company and can pay for little Sally and Bobby to go to a good school and they can have a nice retirement. This does not make for an unbiased man or woman. The scientist that get paid by BP isn't the best guy wo ask if the oil spill is going to have a negative impact or not. The scientist getting paid by some green group is not the best to ask where the line should be drawn on trying to keep the Earth livable and still meeting modern realities. Something to think about.

Another point is- Science has been wrong many many times and will be again many many times. So why say it is the truth somewhere on that time line? Seems like a bad bet.



You clearly have absolutely no idea how science works, sir.

I guess I could tell you or try and reason with you but we've all seen how well that has worked so far so I'm not even going to bother.

Posted over 3 years ago

"GLUIPERIG"

Avatar for "GLUIPERIG"

1607 posts
Joined 01/2011

Sigh. Yet again this thread has turned into a thinly veiled argument between the camps: 'We Christians' and 'We Atheists'.

In the first few pages there was some really golden posts that we thought provoking, yet not provocative. Now it's just like "LOL U CANT B SERIOUS: you're irrational, heres why - <text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text>"

"NO, we are not irrational, heres why: <text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text><text"

Who knew that a topic on Religon would end up in deadend replies, and more importantly, unresolved?

E: "GLUIPERIG" , didnt I read on the 5th page that you would stop posting?

and the 10th..


yet here we are 13 pages later Smile?



Guilty as charged. Smile I think I've said that 2-3 times already...guess I just can't get enough ha ha ha

Posted over 3 years ago

Sneakers

Avatar for Sneakers

2022 posts
Joined 09/2009

.......I really cannot understand how someone can claim that logic, reason and empiricism is a 'belief system.'


As you get older and see people go through the cycle of life.......you will realize what I am talking about. I have seen people gain a faith....and seen people more-or-less lose their faith.
A thinking person asks themselves each time, "Why?"

Respectfully, you cannot argue so strongly AGAINST someone else's belief system -- and then claim that you yourself do NOT have some sort of BIAS (belief system) for something else (right or wrong).

Take a step back, and digest what I have said. Nothing certain or bias has come from me on this topic.....except that most humans have their own belief-systems (religious or science-based). I am not sure why you would want to laugh or fight against me on that idea -- UNLESS you are trying to protect/defend your own beliefs.

/ Dear Lord, please stop making me respond to this guy. Just kidding. Wink

Posted over 3 years ago

tHeBoYmUsTdIe

Avatar for tHeBoYmUsTdIe

1530 posts
Joined 01/2010

This thread brought this hilarious movie to mind for some reason:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

Posted over 3 years ago

"GLUIPERIG"

Avatar for "GLUIPERIG"

1607 posts
Joined 01/2011

"And may God have mercy on your soul" lol

Posted over 3 years ago

"GLUIPERIG"

Avatar for "GLUIPERIG"

1607 posts
Joined 01/2011

tHeBoYmUsTdIe

Avatar for tHeBoYmUsTdIe

1530 posts
Joined 01/2010

The strength of science lies in how easy it is to disprove a theory. Take evolution for example. We have incredible amounts of evidence that supports the theory, but if we even had one little piece of evidence to disprove it, evolution as a theory would fall. You don't need more evidence against than for a theory to say the theory is wrong. All you need is one little piece of evidence, and it all comes tumbling down.

This is why it's reasonable to say that evolution is true, that we know, and that it's a fact. It's reasonable because we can be proven wrong. And this is why it's not reasonable to say that God is true, that you know he is, and that it's a fact. Because it could never be proven wrong.




No man, don't you see what they're saying? Your belief just isn't the same as theirs. You believe in 'science' and they believe in God.


But that's ok cause you're probably young and naive and stuff.

Posted over 3 years ago

improva

Avatar for improva

3892 posts
Joined 02/2008

All theories are approximations. Some fit better with the observed data than others. A good theory outlines it's own limitations, fits with the observed data and allows you predict the result of future experiments. A theory that does not predict the results of future experiments is worthless. Just because we don't like or understand a theory does not make less relevant.

A theory has to be rejected if it claims to explain something - but the observed data tells a very different story.

The theory of evolution is an example of a good theory. Most religions have tried to explain the same events but so far all attempts has been refuted. Some day we may discover a new and better theory of evolution. One that includes a God-like component.

An example of a worthless theory would be. Before the big bang was only God. Then God decided that he wanted to start evolution and he exploded. God is the sum of all things in the universe. God is evolution. The reason it is worthless is because it cannot be verified and it does not predict anything new that is not already predicted by the theory of evolution.

Posted over 3 years ago

StueysKid

Avatar for StueysKid

1018 posts
Joined 11/2009

Okay, going to leave the thread for a while and do other things, but thought to leave an interesting thought experiment on hell.

Punishment is used as a corrective measure; to shape future behavior. Sometimes we'll use punishment to shape other people's behavior (as in enforcing social norms and the like). The point is that the punishment itself is used as a teaching or correcting mechanism.

Hell is allegedly punishment for "not believing" or some other act (or failure to act) within this life time. It's duration is allegedly eternity. If the duration is eternity then Hell itself becomes an oxymoron in that it fails to act as proper punishment because it cannot act as punishment at all in that the punished have no chance to correct their mistake. Hell can only be viewed as torture with no actual goal in mind. The reason is because there's no future behavior to shape. No redemption will be available after said punishment is inflicted.

Therefore Hell cannot be used as punishment, because no corrective behavior is being sought.

But when you view Hell as a human construct to keep the masses in line, then the threat absolutely serves this purpose. Therefore, either Hell is man made fiction, or God is an evil torturer that inflicts suffering with no goal for doing so.

I think I'm going for the man made fiction part.

Posted over 3 years ago

smershbloke

Avatar for smershbloke

319 posts
Joined 07/2008

It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all.


end of

Posted over 3 years ago

maglame

Avatar for maglame

1015 posts
Joined 04/2010

I should have added that the theory is good because it was disprovable. I guess I took it for granted.

What a theory claims should always be testable, and the theory dismissed if, even if a thousand tests confirm it, it's wrong only once. I.e. if the theory says Aces will win against KK all-in pre-flop every time, it doesn't matter how many times the aces win. If the kings win even once, the theory is disproved.

Posted over 3 years ago

nawhead

Avatar for nawhead

2485 posts
Joined 10/2009

@Sneakers

I think I have said it simple enough, so I am not sure where anyone would believe I make any "argument for a god" or against. I said that if I had to be "labeled", I am closest to being "agnostic".
I guess that is my best attempt to be neutral on the subject.


i guess i'm just confused about agnosticism. it seems to me a silly PC move of simply not wanting to be full on "god haters." but it's functionally the same as atheism. agnosticism seems like it's saying both sides can be correct (unknowable), so it tries to be on both sides and no sides.

maybe agnosticism is just too meta for me. Frown

Posted over 3 years ago




HomePoker ForumsGeneral Poker Discussion → Religion thread