Religion rising on campus

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I find it odd that some people equate religion to ignorance. Science in of itself is not the answer to everything. After science what about the development of upper reasoning and spirituality. Some people look at nature and see evolution and other people look at nature and see the handiwork of a caring and loving God. A person is hard pressed to be able to prove either one.

Science is not about answers. Science is about questions. A wise scientist can look at nature and see both evolution and God's handiwork without seeing a paradox at all.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I find it odd that some people equate religion to ignorance. Science in of itself is not the answer to everything. After science what about the development of upper reasoning and spirituality. Some people look at nature and see evolution and other people look at nature and see the handiwork of a caring and loving God. A person is hard pressed to be able to prove either one.

The big question is where did we come from and where are we going when we die?

Was there existence before we were born and is there some other form of existience after we die?

What makes us what we are?

Is it just some happenstance of nature or do we have a spirit?

They didn't just look and assume. They looked, studied, and came to scientific conclusions. Whereas people who looked and saw the works of "God" have nothing to study, have no evidence, and are basing everything entirely on assumption.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I see the holy rollers have taken over this thread.

 

[Promethply]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: piasabird
I find it odd that some people equate religion to ignorance. Science in of itself is not the answer to everything. After science what about the development of upper reasoning and spirituality. Some people look at nature and see evolution and other people look at nature and see the handiwork of a caring and loving God. A person is hard pressed to be able to prove either one.

Science is not about answers. Science is about questions. A wise scientist can look at nature and see both evolution and God's handiwork without seeing a paradox at all.

Amen :thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I see the holy rollers have taken over this thread.

and the U.S. and working on the World.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I see the holy rollers have taken over this thread.

and the U.S. and working on the World.

I'd like to the holy rollers (fundies) to be floating in my toilet.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I see the holy rollers have taken over this thread.

Conjur is a holy roller? :Q

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The big question is where did we come from and where are we going when we die?

You most likely came from mommy and daddy fvcking.
When you die your body gets burried and it rots or is cremated. That's where you go.

Was there existence before we were born and is there some other form of existience after we die?

There was your mommy and daddy before you were born. There will be your children if you have any, after you die. That's it.

What makes us what we are?

Randomness of nature.

Is it just some happenstance of nature or do we have a spirit?

Randomness of nature.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven

by my Father in heaven

And, where in there does it say he called himself a god or divine? It doesn't. <sigh>

You really lack any capability of critical thought, don't you?


I'll pick this apart into shreds later.

In both those he seems to say that he is the son of God. I'm also listening to the St. Matthew Passion (which would be the Passion according to the Gospel of St. Matthew) right now, and I know that when he is taken before both Caiphas (the high priest) and Pilate (the Roman governor), and they ask him whether he is the son of God and the Christ, he answers both in the affirmative.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I see the holy rollers have taken over this thread.

Conjur is a holy roller? :Q

No, he's one of the few with enough patience to argue with holy rollers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I see the holy rollers have taken over this thread.

Conjur is a holy roller? :Q

No, he's one of the few with enough patience to argue with holy rollers.

Meh. I argue with both the holy rollers and unholy rollers. I often have difficulty distinguishing between the 2 groups even, they're both so blinded by their faith.

 

[Coro Dominicano]

Originally posted by: sao123
So does this mean that the educated are becoming uneducated? these are college students who are going against the entire ATAtheists beliefs.. Ie that no educated person could still believe there is a God. that religion is so useless in our society and it will just go away for that reason. yet here is our future generations flocking against the grain to that which they are predicted supposed to despize.

Do you really believe that a society without religion could be possible? Religion, or the hope of something else, greater than ourselves is what moves society, and what makes us better. Regardless if there is God, religion is essential to any society.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Coro Dominicano

Originally posted by: sao123
So does this mean that the educated are becoming uneducated? these are college students who are going against the entire ATAtheists beliefs.. Ie that no educated person could still believe there is a God. that religion is so useless in our society and it will just go away for that reason. yet here is our future generations flocking against the grain to that which they are predicted supposed to despize.

Do you really believe that a society without religion could be possible? Religion, or the hope of something else, greater than ourselves is what moves society, and what makes us better. Regardless if there is God, religion is essential to any society.

Look more closely at what he wrote. He is disagreeing with that position, although expressing it somewhat inarticulately...

 

[Red and black]

Fun fun fun: The Brick Testament

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I see the holy rollers have taken over this thread.

Conjur is a holy roller? :Q

No, he's one of the few with enough patience to argue with holy rollers.

Meh. I argue with both the holy rollers and unholy rollers. I often have difficulty distinguishing between the 2 groups even, they're both so blinded by their faith.

Atheism is not a faith oh unbalanced, great neutral one!!! In fact it is defined by its lack of faith.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I see the holy rollers have taken over this thread.

Conjur is a holy roller? :Q

No, he's one of the few with enough patience to argue with holy rollers.

Meh. I argue with both the holy rollers and unholy rollers. I often have difficulty distinguishing between the 2 groups even, they're both so blinded by their faith.

Atheism is not a faith oh unbalanced, great neutral one!!! In fact it is defined by its lack of faith.

Wrong. You have been tricked by a semantic flaw in the English langauge. Atheism is neither a lack of faith nor a lack of belief, that is agnosticism. Atheism is instead a belief or faith in the opposite, i.e. instead of believing in the existence of God you believe in the non-existence of God. The semantic flaw btw is the phrase "I do not believe in God", which implies an absence of belief when in fact no such absence exists. Try saying, "I do believe not in God", which carries the correct semantic meaning.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic
. The semantic flaw btw is the phrase "I do not believe in God", which implies an absence of belief when in fact no such absence exists. Try saying, "I do believe not in God", which carries the correct semantic meaning.

:roll:

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Vic
Try saying, "I do believe not in God", which carries the correct semantic meaning.

Haha, I had a question on a final exam in a logic/philosophy class about that once. You're exactly correct.

 

[Vic]

Think what you will, Red. If you claim to know something that cannot be proven, i.e. that God does not exist, then you have a belief. Simple as that.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic
Think what you will, Red. If you claim to know something that cannot be proven, i.e. that God does not exist, then you have a belief. Simple as that.

I do not believe in fairy tales.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
Think what you will, Red. If you claim to know something that cannot be proven, i.e. that God does not exist, then you have a belief. Simple as that.

I do not believe in fairy tales.

Can you disprove the "fairy tales", Red? Simply because you put a derogatory label on the subject does not change what it is.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
Think what you will, Red. If you claim to know something that cannot be proven, i.e. that God does not exist, then you have a belief. Simple as that.

I do not believe in fairy tales.

Can you disprove the "fairy tales", Red? Simply because you put a derogatory label on the subject does not change what it is.

Yeah there is no proof they exist besides in folklore.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Vic
Think what you will, Red. If you claim to know something that cannot be proven, i.e. that God does not exist, then you have a belief. Simple as that.

No, it's not like that.

It's more like a lack of a belief in a "One-eyed, one-horned, flying-purple-people-eater." You don't go around "actively disbelieving" in it. In fact, you dont' even consider believing in it at all.

Or what about the infinite multitude of things that you can make up on the spot. Does everyone have a "disbelief" that those don't exist? Does it require a belief system to not believe in those things, even the things you've never heard of or considered? No.

Lack of belief is the default state for everything, untill you are shown otherwise.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Vic
Think what you will, Red. If you claim to know something that cannot be proven, i.e. that God does not exist, then you have a belief. Simple as that.

No, it's not like that.

It's more like a lack of a belief in a "One-eyed, one-horned, flying-purple-people-eater." You don't go around "actively disbelieving" in it. In fact, you dont' even consider believing in it at all.

Or what about the infinite multitude of things that you can make up on the spot. Does everyone have a "disbelief" that those don't exist? Does it require a belief system to not believe in those things, even the things you've never heard of or considered? No.

Lack of belief is the default state for everything, untill you are shown otherwise.

That is agnosticism. Vic is talking about atheism.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
Think what you will, Red. If you claim to know something that cannot be proven, i.e. that God does not exist, then you have a belief. Simple as that.

I do not believe in fairy tales.

Can you disprove the "fairy tales", Red? Simply because you put a derogatory label on the subject does not change what it is.

Yeah there is no proof they exist besides in folklore.

Lack of proof for one thing does not equal proof for something else. Therefore, lack of proof of a God does not equal proof that there is no God. Vic has been explaining this, and it's very painful to watch.