tommykins
i am number -e^i*pi
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,730
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Took me a while.moll. said:I like how those two lines are right next to each other.
I find it fitting.
Then I lol'd.
Took me a while.moll. said:I like how those two lines are right next to each other.
I find it fitting.
does god exists well... iam here bitches and its all in the reflexesMoonlightSonata said:This thread is for discussions about whether God exists.
I created a similar thread a long with the same title but I eventually deleted it because it became a monster. I am reluctant to recreate this thread, however such discussions about God are encroaching on a number of different topics and should be contained.
I strongly suggest that anyone taking part in this thread read the Fallacies section of the argument guide.
An excellent point, Gerhard. So let me explain:gerhard said:ive got a question about christianity/monotheistic gods. Ive never really understood this, im sure christians must have some sort of answer for it since it seems like such an obvious problem.
Firstly, God is omniscient. He knows everything, he is outside of time. he knows the past and the future.
Secondly, I have free choice to accept god or not. My future is not pre-determined, I can make my own decisions.
But how can I have a free choice if god already knows what Im going to do? God knows the future, he surely must know what I am going to do and if he does then I wouldnt have free choice. If he doesnt know what Im going to do, then he isnt much of a god.
If you created the laws which govern what happens when you let go of the ball, then yes you did.An excellent point, Gerhard. So let me explain:
Say I have a tennis ball and am on earth- say on a tennis court, fore simplicity's sake. If i hold the ball at head height and ask what will happen when i let go, what do you think will happen? I think the ball will fall to the ground. Why? Because i know that there is gravity on earth and that it causes objects to fall to the ground- i know this both from experience and have seen it proved mathematically. So i "know" what is going to happen when I let go: the ball will fall to the ground.
Question: I know what will happen. Does this mean I am causing the ball to fall to the ground?
Yeah cool so you got an argument or you just wanna bitch about us? 'More effective' form of evangelism? I think that's a pretty stark difference, cause you see... for me it's not about winning anyone over.j.russell said:i'm just looking at this and sighing.
i'm going to state the obvious...
any internet conversation about religion is useless, basically.
the people who bother to enter these conversations have already vehemently made-up their minds.
i'm a christian and well, i guess people could be converted in any context..
but arent these conversations just annoying for all involved? i'm pretty sure they never reach conclusions, so it just seems like religious and strongly non-religious people butting heads for the sake of it.
pushy atheists: why be forceful? chill out
christians: maybe try a more effective form of evangelism?
LOL @ you assuming we interpret it literally because we wish to, and not because believers interpret it as such and in order to have a "productive" discussion, one must interpret it on that level (even if only to mock)cannibal.horse said:LOL @ 17 year old Atheists interpreting Genesis from a literal perspective.
How do you interpret it? Do you see it as a work of man which probably has absolutely no bearing on the nature of reality?cannibal.horse said:LOL @ 17 year old Atheists interpreting Genesis from a literal perspective.
LOL @ you for assuming all Christians interpret biblical texts from a literal perspective whilst liturgy centred varients have long placed greater emphasis on church tradition and universal interpretation of Christ's message (note: homily).Kwayera said:LOL @ you assuming we interpret it literally because we wish to, and not because believers interpret it as such and in order to have a "productive" discussion, one must interpret it on that level (even if only to mock)
I wasn't bitching about you, i guess what i said was just an accumulated expression of frustration at the nature of religious internet discussions.55HS said:Yeah cool so you got an argument or you just wanna bitch about us? 'More effective' form of evangelism? I think that's a pretty stark difference, cause you see... for me it's not about winning anyone over.
I.. don't assume all Christians interpret the Bible literally? I was talking about the ones that do and given the amount of creationists around (speaking of Genesis in particular here), there's a lot.cannibal.horse said:LOL @ you for assuming all Christians interpret biblical texts from a literal perspective whilst liturgy centred varients have long placed greater emphasis on church tradition and universal interpretation of Christ's message (note: homily).
By definition, I'd think that the Bible is the primary source for divine revelation for a significant proportion of Christians (as separate from Catholicism).Whilst the bible is the normative text for Christian life its literal interpretation is not the only way that divine revelation occurs.
Why don't you use church (primarily Catholic) doctrine such as Peace With God the Creator and Creation (Pope John Paul II - 1989) to debate Christian viewpoints? because I can assure you church doctrine is read literally.
Seeking knowledge/truth through putting your thoughts up against those of others. In part it's probably a bit of an ego trip, but I really don't see how you can say this is any more 'pointless' than any other philosophical argument which has been had; amongst esteemed professors and theologians, amongst teenagers and working class people.j.russell said:I wasn't bitching about you, i guess what i said was just an accumulated expression of frustration at the nature of religious internet discussions.
Besides, you illustrate my point well, "not about winning anyone over" , well then, what is it about? It just seems to me like argumentative people arguing for argument's sake. Or trying to exercise their knowledge? ego? (or religious people trying to convert). And no, I don't have an argument, sorry to interrupt.
Yes there sure is...Kwayera said:I.. don't assume all Christians interpret the Bible literally? I was talking about the ones that do and given the amount of creationists around (speaking of Genesis in particular here), there's a lot.
Divine revelation does not necessarily occur through literal translationKwayera said:By definition, I'd think that the Bible is the primary source for divine revelation for a significant proportion of Christians (as separate from Catholicism).
You didn't see the irony that your post was useless itself?j.russell said:I wasn't bitching about you, i guess what i said was just an accumulated expression of frustration at the nature of religious internet discussions.
Besides, you illustrate my point well, "not about winning anyone over" , well then, what is it about? It just seems to me like argumentative people arguing for argument's sake. Or trying to exercise their knowledge? ego? (or religious people trying to convert). And no, I don't have an argument, sorry to interrupt.
Just because the "Church" in question is not creationist, that - most emphatically - does not mean that their congregations follow that particular (often rather quietly admitted) allowance.cannibal.horse said:Yes there sure is...
Considering 1 billion Catholics don't.
Nor do Orthodox and Eastern Catholics.
Nor do High Church Anglican.
Nor do many protestant varients...
Debateing a strawman Christianity are we?
I suppose you could say from many 'vessels' - see Job 38: 1-41 outlining God's presence in natural phenomina (Bernards)Miles Edgeworth said:Wait so you seek truth from a vessel rather than the divine text of the lord? Eeeeeiiinteresting?
Where's the bible on the immaculate conception? And popes?
And indulgences?
And child rape?