I think that reincarnation is the real deal. I think we live until we've done all we can and learned all we can. What do ya'll think? Do you agree or not?

quote:

Originally posted by EarthGoddess:
But there's still no God. Why? Because I say so.

Ipse Dixit Fallacy

I love the idea of reincarnation.

quote:

I believe I covered that.

I didnt see it in your post, which is why I mentioned it.

I think that it's been covered several dozen times clpo...

quote:

However, fundamentalists believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Yeeesss...I believe I covered that.

yes I agree on that subject.

Though I believe that some of it may happen, I think it's mostly metaphorical.

Yeah the revaltion to John is covered in a 8ft thick layer of mysticism and may not be whats going to happen at all.

quote:

Originally posted by yogore:

quote:

However, a literal look at the Bible is foolish

However, fundamentalists believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

For me, it depends on the part of the Bible. Isaiah and Revelation are very metaphorical for example.

Yaeh but fundamentalists are idiots who blind themselves to understanding the universe.

this is getting good.....

anyone ever read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead"?

she present the theories of objectivism and egotism---- very interesting read for sharp minds like yours....

quote:

However, a literal look at the Bible is foolish

However, fundamentalists believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Well, I guess you're right. I am wrong.

But there's still no God. Why? Because I say so.

quote:

Actually I will now prove God (or a higher power) exists using Newton's Laws:

There are theories, including string theory, that suggest the physics we know now, probably didn't exist before the universe was born.

I prefer the agnostic view myself. One can neither prove nor disprove the existence (or non-existence, if you prefer) of God, or any god for that matter.

quote:

Science proves almost everything in the bible to be wrong.

Wrong. You're taking a literalist view of the Bible. Although, that's not really surprising for an atheist. Atheists tend to take the secular humanist view of literature, especially the Bible. They assume they can look at the Bible completely objectively, without any preconceived ideas about what they're going to find. However, merely by being against the idea of a god, they have already inserted subjectivity to their look at the Bible. And since the Bible is contrary to any world view without a creator figure, atheists automatically see the Bible as completely and irrefutably wrong, needing no more proof than their own logic and reasoning, if one can call it that.

quote:

The bible assumes the universe is only a few thousand years old.

Wrong again. No where in the Bible does it state the age of the Universe. The estimate of six thousand years comes from literalist Biblical scholars who added up the ages and dates given in various books of the Bible and came out with that figure. However, a literal look at the Bible is foolish. Such a piece of writing did not become the most widely printed work in the history of humankind without having some stuff between the lines. Take the six days of creation. Most people assume them to be six twenty-four hour periods. Indeed they are...from the Earth's standpoint. But when one considers that a day according to humans is one revolution around the sun, one realizes that such a period of time may not apply to other reference points. Time is relative, I remind you. Theoretically, those six days of creation could be one million years. Or one billion. Or 13.7 billion, which is the most widely accepted scientifically proven age of the Universe. Having not actually been there, no one can say for sure.

And with that little bit of insight, your whole argument against the validity of the Bible falls apart. So sorry.

Actually I will now prove God (or a higher power) exists using Newton's Laws:

Objects at rest tend to remian at rest right? so before creation or whatever you want to call it we can assume the matter that became the universe was at rest. So if everything was at rest there were no forces in motion to give the universe it's starting shove so a force that while not moving that could make another object at rest move had to act upon the pre-universe to start things off. This force is called "The Unmoving Mover" but most people just call it God.

On the Bible: it was given to man from God it was then mistranslated and mis-umderstood and of course changed to fit man's view point and mysticism of course some of it's gonna be a load of dung. Also science proved a gigantic flood occured in ancient history not "world flooding" but it covered a lot of land Noah's Flood perhaps?

quote:

Therefore, you cannot say that there is no heaven.

Actually, I can.

The bible was written long before mordern science. Science proves almost everything in the bible to be wrong. If the bible is wrong, and God is supposedly never wrong, it is safe to say there is no God to begin with. With there being no God, there can be no Heaven.

The bible assumes the universe is only a few thousand years old. And that God created the universe at that time. This is impossible, because it were true we wouldn't be seeing many stars in the sky. Light travels at 186,000 mi/s. Many of the stars we see are millions of lightyears away, which means it took millions of years for that light to reach us. And the fact that we can see them proves the bible to be horribly wrong. If it is wrong about that, it can be wrong about anything else, including the existence of a God. So then, if a "perfect" book, inspired by a "perfect" God, can be wrong, there is no God. And thus, no heaven or hell.

quote:

Originally posted by EarthGoddess:

quote:

Anyways, what's up with..."I think, therefore I'm right," thing. At least, even though I can't prove my beliefs to others (I admit it) at least I have "I know, therefore I'm right."

Here is why your reasoning is wrong and just plain doesn't work: "I know there is no God, therefore I'm right." Don't like that, do you? And unlike you, I have proof. Therefore, I am indeed very right. There is no heaven. You've never been there. You never will be there. It's a cute little fairy tale.

that's called shifting the burden of proof. You have not been everywhere. Therefore, you cannot say that there is no heaven.

quote:

Anyways, what's up with..."I think, therefore I'm right," thing. At least, even though I can't prove my beliefs to others (I admit it) at least I have "I know, therefore I'm right."

Here is why your reasoning is wrong and just plain doesn't work: "I know there is no God, therefore I'm right." Don't like that, do you? And unlike you, I have proof. Therefore, I am indeed very right. There is no heaven. You've never been there. You never will be there. It's a cute little fairy tale.

quote:

Originally posted by singer500:
I think you have a great point, but what proof is there?

ask any religion that.