ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
This is true of many mainstream Protestant sects as well. It is only the non-demoninational, fundie, and conservative (politically, that is, not theologically) sects that make the NT the final and only authority.
Heaven & Hell (Open to Everyone)
- Thread starter IBDaMann
- Start date
This is true of many mainstream Protestant sects as well. It is only the non-demoninational, fundie, and conservative (politically, that is, not theologically) sects that make the NT the final and only authority.
Into the Night
Verified User
Nope. It's theft of wealth.
Stalin was the same. Theft of wealth.
The Nazis were also socialists. Theft of wealth.
The French have lost every war I can think of, even their own civil war.
There was never a democracy in Russia. There was never a vote to implement one.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Margot
Verified User
Why don't you try reading my post? Do you need me to translate it into Deutsch for you?
Es gibt zwei Probleme mit Ihrer Frage.
1. Niemand muss wissen, wie das Universum entstanden ist. Es steht Ihnen frei, zu spekulieren, dass ein christlicher „Gott“ existiert und „alles“ erschaffen hat, aber niemand ist verpflichtet, Ihre Spekulationen zu akzeptieren. Darüber hinaus muss niemand über den Ursprung des Universums spekulieren, also muss er Ihre Spekulationen nicht akzeptieren.
2. Atheisten sind nicht irgendwie in einem gedankenlosen Kollektiv vereint, das offiziell vorgeschriebene Spekulationen über die Ursprünge des Universums irgendwie verbietet. Atheisten haben einfach keinen Theismus. Über die Spekulationen eines Atheisten über den Ursprung des Universums kann man nur sagen, dass sie keinen Theismus beinhalten. Aus diesem Grund ist der Urknall beliebt, weil er mit (unserer sehr begrenzten) astronomischen Beobachtung übereinstimmt, äußerlich mit anderen wissenschaftlichen Modellen übereinstimmt, ... er seinen Zweck erfüllt. Wenn jedoch morgen irgendeine Entdeckung die Urknalltheorie zunichte macht, wird kein Atheist sich ihr religiös verpflichten und sie wird auf der Strecke bleiben.
Hint: the above is not nothing. You asked a bogus question for the reasons I specified. I suggest you take advantage of a do-over.
Sounds right.
I think there are some fire and brimstone Protestants who look frequently to the OT to justify their hatred of gays, and their penchant for retribution justice
Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.
Yes, she does very frequently.
Into the Night
Verified User
Your perspective is noted.
I, on the other hand, suggest that it borders on insanity to look at something so obviously random as the dust cloud we call the observable universe and believe that it was somehow intelligently designed. You might as well say that the die roll results at your favorite craps table are intelligently planned. Warmizombies rely on this particular error when they claim that random weather somehow has "patterns."
But I stand by your fundamental right to believe whatever you wish to believe. You should nonetheless get Into the Night's insights and avoid being a closed-minded snowflake cowering in a collective safe space. Listen to differing ideas and apply your own analysis and critical reasoning. I'd love to hear what you have to say about what he has to say.
I think you are making a false equivalence here, IBDaMann. He is not talking about 'patterns' and neither am I when discussing the Theory of Creation. It is not the same as the Warmazombies at all.
The two conflicting theories here are the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Abiogenesis.
For those monitoring, the Theory of Creation is simply that life came to Earth through the action of some kind of intelligent act. Usually that intelligence is marked as some kind of god or gods. It could be aliens, gods, or any other intelligence.
The Theory of Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is the theory that life originated here on Earth through a series of random unspecified events. The events themselves or their timing don't matter much, just that they took place. Life took the first form of some kind of cell able to reproduce on it's own, and evolve into the wide variety of life we see today. The Theory of Evolution, a separate theory, IS coupled with the Theory of Abiogenesis. The Theory of Evolution simply states that all of the varieties of life we see today, including Man, evolved from 'simpler' life forms. How the original life form came to exist on Earth is immaterial, whether it was through the Theory of Creation or the Theory of Abiogenesis. The coupling tends to favor the Theory of Abiogenesis.
The Theory of Creation and the Theory of Abiogenesis are mutually exclusive. If one is True, the other must be False. BOTH may be False, and some other means occurred.
Neither the Theory of Creation, the Theory of Abiogenesis, nor the Theory of Evolution are theories of science.
Another set of theories being discussed here, also mutually exclusive with each other, are the Theory of the Big Bang, and the Theory of the Continuum.
The Theory of the Big Bang most people are familiar with, since it is taught in school as 'true'. It simply states that the Universe has a beginning (and an end) that is usually described as a point mass that explodes into what you observe as the Universe today. The Theory of the Continuum simply states that the Universe has no beginning (and no end). It has always existed, and always will continue to exist.
Again, NONE of these theories are theories of science. They are ALL non-scientific theories. NONE of them are falsifiable, since it is not possible to test the theory itself by going back in time to see what actually happened. We can only speculate.
Note that probability math has no application here at all. The boundaries are not specifiable, and the randX is not specifiable. To say one theory over another is more 'probable' or 'has a pattern' is a math error.
Each of these theories has problems:
If the Theory of the Big Bang is True, and a god or gods exist, where were they? If there is no Universe for them to exist in, how did the Universe come to experience the Big Bang? If such god or gods exist OUTSIDE the Universe, the Universe is not the Universe. It is not universal. There is an 'outside' to it.
If the Theory of Abiogenesis is True, then the result is of course some kind of single cell. Now what? What's it going to eat? It can't absorb light for food, since that requires a complex structure (more complex than a single cell). It must eat something in order to reproduce into two and then more and more cells.
If the Theory of Creation is True, then the intelligence must exist out there. So far, however, we have not seen ANY form of intelligence outside the Earth. To say that this means there isn't one, however, is an argument of ignorance (a fallacy). The intelligence MAY exist, but no instrument simply has not found it yet. One can say there is evidence of one, but the intelligence itself has yet to be detected.
If the Theory of Evolution (which came from the Greeks, not Darwin) is True, then this presupposes some kind of original form that all life stems from. If that form is a single cell living by itself, you run into the same problems as the Theory of Abiogenesis. What's it going to eat?
The Theory of Natural Selection (which Darwin created), is not a valid theory. It creates a paradox. Further, animal and plant species exist that are NOT best suited for their environment.
The paradox forms because to 'select', you must first have a variety to select from. If the tendency is toward a selection of that variety and the rest die away, what creates the variety in the first place? Setting aside the theory for a time? This itself means the theory must be False, since you cannot 'select' from a non-existent 'variety'. Darwin's Paradox was meant to explain a mechanism for the Theory of Evolution, but it is not the Theory of Evolution itself.
The definition of a religion can be described by noting it's common characteristics. There IS one common trait of all religions. ALL religions stem from some initial circular argument (also known as the Argument of Faith, and is NOT a fallacy), such that a god or gods exist. Christianity, for example, has the initial circular argument that Jesus Christ not only exists, but is who He says He is, namely the Son of God (which also must exist). ALL other arguments stem from this initial circular argument. It is based on faith, and faith alone. There is no way to prove whether it is True or False. In other words, a religion is simply some initial circular argument, with arguments stemming from that. You can describe Christianity this way, as well as Buddhism, Shinto in all of it's various forms (including many American Indian forms), Hinduism, the Church of No God (what I call it!), etc. Religions tend to try to show something is True, yet stems from this initial circular argument.
Each of these non-scientific theories is also a religion. The initial circular argument is the theory itself, and has arguments extending from them. There is a Church of the Big Bang, the Church of Abiogenesis, the Church of Creation (often incorporated into other religions as well!), the Church of Evolution, the Church of the Continuum, etc.
As for me, I favor the Theory of Creation, the Theory of the Continuum, and Christianity. These have the fewest problems when taken together, and can coexist with the teachings of the Bible.
Does this mean a bunch of lost souls wandering an infinite Universe? No. To make such a statement presupposes the current limits on our perception will always be. There is nothing that says this must happen. Death itself is a separation of such soul from the limitations of the body (for a time). Our Earth is but one planet where life may occur. One of millions? Why would such souls with a common past as Earth not know each other with a degree of perception that we today cannot even imagine with our current limitations? And this is only the beginning.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
There's no fucking agenda! THIS IS CALLED HAVING A THEOLOGY DISCUSSION (This is literally the kind of stuff that happens in a real philosophy class)
Protestants make up 900million to 1 BILLION people. By number of followrs it is the SECOND LARGEST CHRISTIAN SECT.
Last edited:
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Not on this thread. She came in bitching about other posters right off the bat then got into more of a bitchfest with Doc over other posters. The ONLY thing she discussed was the word "kill" in the Ten Commandments and then simply ignored comments from Strong's Concordance about the word.
Then it was back to whining about other posters.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
What part of fuck off is hard for you to grok, Auntie June?
Your hypocrisy.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I used to read Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer novels when I was a kid.
I believe I have all of those paperbacks in a storage crate somewhere.
They're not on my library shelves, that's for sure.
Mike Hammer was a brute and not the least bit shy about using racial slurs.
He was pretty much of a misogynist as well.
If he were a real person, I have to think that I'd hate him.
As his being a fictional character, however, I loved him and would want to be him,
but only if I could live in a fictional world
where I was just imagining the nonsense that went on in the stories.
Actual people aren't like pulp fiction people at all if they're sane.
Pornography is like that as well.
Sane men can imagine things that they see as exiting
as long as they know in their minds that they'd have none of it in the real world.
If they can't make that distinction, they're very deficient maniacs.
I wonder if the Bible is like that as well.
I was raised in the Catholic faith
and unlike Born Agains,
we weren't known as bible zealots.
I believe I have all of those paperbacks in a storage crate somewhere.
They're not on my library shelves, that's for sure.
Mike Hammer was a brute and not the least bit shy about using racial slurs.
He was pretty much of a misogynist as well.
If he were a real person, I have to think that I'd hate him.
As his being a fictional character, however, I loved him and would want to be him,
but only if I could live in a fictional world
where I was just imagining the nonsense that went on in the stories.
Actual people aren't like pulp fiction people at all if they're sane.
Pornography is like that as well.
Sane men can imagine things that they see as exiting
as long as they know in their minds that they'd have none of it in the real world.
If they can't make that distinction, they're very deficient maniacs.
I wonder if the Bible is like that as well.
I was raised in the Catholic faith
and unlike Born Agains,
we weren't known as bible zealots.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
My wife, a cradle catholic (in recovery) likes to reply when asked if she's read the Bible: "We wrote it. We don't have to read it."
Yakuda
Verified User
Your perspective is noted.
I, on the other hand, suggest that it borders on insanity to look at something so obviously random as the dust cloud we call the observable universe and believe that it was somehow intelligently designed. You might as well say that the die roll results at your favorite craps table are intelligently planned. Warmizombies rely on this particular error when they claim that random weather somehow has "patterns."
But I stand by your fundamental right to believe whatever you wish to believe. You should nonetheless get Into the Night's insights and avoid being a closed-minded snowflake cowering in a collective safe space. Listen to differing ideas and apply your own analysis and critical reasoning. I'd love to hear what you have to say about what he has to say.
the results of the die roll arent planned but the die are.
its true that people can convince themselves of all kinds of stupid shit
Into the Night
Verified User
If you say God always existed, then the Universe itself has always existed.
Into the Night
Verified User
You misspelled Democrats again.
Into the Night
Verified User
There are two problems with your question.
1. Nobody is somehow required to know how the universe was formed. You are free to speculate that a Christian "God" exists and created "everything" but no one is required to accept your speculation. Further, no one is required to have any speculation on the formation of the universe lest he be required to accept your speculation.
2. Atheists are not somehow united in a mindless collective that somehow proscribes an officially required speculation on the formation of the universe. Atheists simply have no theism. All you can say about any atheist's speculation about the formation of the universe is that it doesn't involve any theism. To that end, the Big Bang is popular because it is consistent with (our very limited) astronomical observation, it is externally consistent with other science models, ... it gets the job done. However, if tomorrow some discovery blows the Big Bang theory out of the water, no atheist has any sort of religious attachment to it and it will fall by the wayside.
I submit that the Theory of the Big Bang is NOT consistent with any model of science.
That theory is NOT a theory of science. No model of any theory of science supports infinite energy in an infinitely small space.
* no boundary to the Universe has ever been detected.
* our view of the Universe is finite. We cannot see all of the Universe.
* remember a model of any theory of science is just a model. A noun to describe the theory with.
* there is NO Ultimate Theory of the Universe that is a theory of science.
Into the Night
Verified User
But you have, though you claim to be an atheist.
Indeed, you assigned bogus positions to Mormons recently.
Margot
Verified User
Spirit World existed before the Physical universe.
Satan and a third of Angels tried to overthrow YHWH,at the moment Satan touched YHWH ,the Reaction was the creation of the Physical universe through the Big Bang .
Also "the Angel who has power over fire" was created
AKA Michael the ArchAngel who holds the office of Melchizedek.
