Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Registered: August 11, 2004
Posts: 4
|
Hey I'm athiest and im looking 4 a debate on religion...but a friendly debate b/c i dont hav a problem w/religious ppl i jst wnt 2 see if i can get a few straight answers.... so here's my 1st question: Frst of all, why is our god real but all the gods from greek and roman "mythology" aren't?? I mean who's to say that in a few thousand years people won't call "God" mythology?!
Dream As If You'll Live Forever...Live As If You'll Die
|
Registered: January 22, 2005
Posts: 870
|
I have to say, Romashu, that I have quite literally no idea what your post is arguing. In what way is a circumpunct connected to any of these figures? Apart from a few factual errors (Sekhmet or Bast are the Egyptian equivalents of the Greek Ares rather than Thoth, who is the equivalent of Hermes), on what historical evidence are you basing the name and equivalence of an 'Atlantian' god? And what is the significance of your last point about people in capes and so on?
'I consider that there is nothing better or more enjoyable than life itself. It is not therefore to be wondered at if I am willing to purchase my life with my material possessions.' Geoffrey of Monmouth
|
Registered: March 03, 2009
Posts: 399
|
Since im not gonna waist time to read through everything in the last comment ill start by re-answering the original question in a different view and manner. Most Gods that were known in the ancient past have some sort of connection with other civilizations. These Gods will not always share the same name. Some will not share all of the same characteristics since each civilization sees these Gods in very different ways. One symbol remains the same and refers to all gods in the world. The Circumpunct. Mars – Ares (Greek) Apollo Ceres (Demeter) Diana (Artemis) Juno (Hera) Jupiter (Zeus) Mercury (Hermes) Minerva (Athena), [Etruscan (Menrva)]. Neptune (Poseidon) Venus (Aphrodite) Vesta (Hestia) Vulcan (Hephaestus) Ares is found in numerous civilizations under numerous different names: Kukulcan – Mayan god (The Feathered Serpent). Nacon – Mayan God of War. Tehuti – Atlanitan God Thoth – Egyptian God Ea or Enki – Sumer God Quetzalcoatl – Mesopotamian and Peruvian God – Typhon directly related. Alator, Albiorix, Belenus, Bres , Esus, Iovantucarus, Latobius, Lenus, Lugh, Nuada - directly related to roman mars. Indirectly related names are Mercury, Zeus, Apollo Ares is supposedly the one who taught the Mayan farming and herding. Is it not possible that the Mayan people who had never seen a modern warrior with chainmail and a cape to mistake him for a feathered serpent or Kukulcan?
"If you can't stand the way this place is, take yourself to higher places, Break Away To Higher Places" - TDG
|
Registered: June 14, 2004
Posts: 2743
|
quote: Originally posted by facemoney:
The thought of an all knowing God and a god of free will clashes in my head. If god knows all then he knows all the bad as well. He is the reason for the raped, the reason for the disease, the reason for the hungry, the reason for all. I do not worship that.
The concept of an omniscient God giving His creation free will is one that is hard to understand, and you've misunderstood it. If we accept that both (a) God is omniscient and (b) we as humans have free will, it does not have to follow that He is the reason for all the bad stuff that happens, though you can take it that way if you wish. Yes, God knows and has always known that some particular individual will be murdered tomorrow night, but He is not the reason or the cause of it. He knew the consequences of giving us free will but He also knew the benefits of it and, I suppose, thought the benefits outweighed the consequences. Not to mention the fact that if He were to give us a perfect world then what would we have to live for? There would be no reason for people to want to get to Heaven because Heaven would be here on Earth. So while He knows, has always known, will always know everything that happens, that does not make Him the cause of it. We are the cause of it because we have free will. quote: People actually believe in in these stories. Don't get me wrong the bible does teach great lessons but for a person to believe every word is no very smart. It was a talking snake! A story of a person being stuck in a giant fish for three days! Noah's ark? How do you get one of every animal on a boat? That does not make sence? What about the food chain? None of the animals got hungry? How can god be a human? Virgin birth? that hoe lying (lol)jk...
You're right - there are Christians who take the Bible word for word and believe that every story told is the truth. You're right - these people are rather ignorant. There are some things in the Bible that can be and should be taken literally but everything in the Bible has a spiritual sense that must be acknowledged. So everything has a spiritual sense but not everything has a literal sense. Frankly, there are ignorant and stupid people in every religion, not just Christianity. But somehow we always get called out for it even though there are plenty of us who are intelligent. I believe in God, but I don't believe that the world was created in six days. quote: I do not want to make people upset but just take a moment to THINK, before that becomes illegal. We need to learn from the million of holy wars in the past and hatred and come together as human beings instead of letting religion divide us! Religion is a big allusion and i hope the people free their minds from the restraints
I think that taking this view of religion is more naive than people who follow a religion. I hate this modern idea of "freeing your mind" - as if my mind is somehow incapacitated just because I believe in a higher being. No, fuck that.
Belief makes things real/Makes things feel, feel alright/Belief makes things true/Things like you, you and I
|
Registered: February 10, 2010
Posts: 1
|
I do not believe in god! My mother will probably smack me if she heard me say that but its just what i feel. The thought of an all knowing God and a god of free will clashes in my head. If god knows all then he knows all the bad as well. He is the reason for the raped, the reason for the disease, the reason for the hungry, the reason for all. I do not worship that. The holy bible is about as holy as a playboy magazine. People actually believe in in these stories. Don't get me wrong the bible does teach great lessons but for a person to believe every word is no very smart. It was a talking snake! A story of a person being stuck in a giant fish for three days! Noah's ark? How do you get one of every animal on a boat? That does not make sence? What about the food chain? None of the animals got hungry? How can god be a human? Virgin birth? that hoe lying (lol)jk... I do not want to make people upset but just take a moment to THINK, before that becomes illegal. We need to learn from the million of holy wars in the past and hatred and come together as human beings instead of letting religion divide us! Religion is a big allusion and i hope the people free their minds from the restraints
|
Registered: June 14, 2004
Posts: 2743
|
quote: According to Christian teachings, there's a little "part" of God in each being. Therefore, after a person dies, that "part" of God must return to and "reattach" to God. So that metaphysical inside each human must return to the large metaphysical state of existence.
This is not what traditional Christian teaches. This idea originated in the form of Christian Gnosticism back in the day. But modern Christians don't think like that and the "regular" Christians (i.e. not Gnostics or Marcions or what have you) didn't back then either. The idea of the Holy Spirit is that God is always with you, in your heart, but this is in a metaphorical sense rather than a physical one. There is a part of God in you...but not really. quote:
In my opinion, the Bible is meant to be metaphorically understood and not literally.
You're not alone in that opinion. It can be dated all the way back to Origen who stressed that while every part of the Bible has a spiritual meaning, not every part has a literal meaning. This is the way I see it too. I get rather angry with Christians who really believe the Earth was created in six days... There's my two cents. I don't know jack about philosophy, just about Christianity, so I can't respond to the rest.
Belief makes things real/Makes things feel, feel alright/Belief makes things true/Things like you, you and I
|
Registered: June 14, 2004
Posts: 2743
|
quote: Originally posted by Brehon:
First off, and most importantly, Worth, it's good to see you back again.
quote: Haven't seen Worth in a long long time...
Good to see you too. I come back every once and awhile but super busy with college...yeah! I'm in college now! lol and almost 21. Growing up, y/n. 
Belief makes things real/Makes things feel, feel alright/Belief makes things true/Things like you, you and I
|
Registered: April 21, 2008
Posts: 143
|
quote: I have missed you, but not for as long. Haven't seen Worth in a long long time...
Hahaha. Alright i'll level with you. You clearly have a lot more experience in philosphy under your belt, than i do. To be honest, i tend to under estimate YN posters. Every now and then an exception pops up. You are the exception, Brehon. quote: Anyway, you take my point. He is clearly figured as someone who is no omnipresent, and understood to have physical form and relation to the physical world, which should be impossible for some sort of "metaphysical being", whatever that might be.
In my opinion, the Bible is meant to be metaphorically understood and not literally. Also, the metaphysical can APPEAR to physical beings in forms which can be understood by the physical, although that form may not be that of the metaphyscial being, burning bush, bright light, etc. I can make such a claim because any claim against this will have the same level of validity, which is virtually very low, since we know nothing about the metaphysical. But then again, how can the metaphysical have a form when form itself is a physical trait? quote: After all, that would mean that we are excluded from metaphysical existence
According to Christian teachings, there's a little "part" of God in each being. Therefore, after a person dies, that "part" of God must return to and "reattach" to God. So that metaphysical inside each human must return to the large metaphysical state of existence. Now if you go further and assume there is some being in the human "attached" to this "part" of God, meaning if you believe there is a "soul" than that soul would move into the metaphysical state of being as well. But this brings up more questions than answers. Most important of which, how can the metaphysical be attached to or withheld in the physical. Descartes tried to answer this question but didnt succeed so im not gonna try. He said that a specific region in the brain, forgot which part, something starting with a "p" i think, "houses" the metapysical which really doesnt make sense, to be housed is also a physical trait. Another question, can the metaphysical be diveded into parts? But the thing is we can never really be sure if it can or cannot be "divided". Thats the point i made in my first post. We can never really say we KNOW about the metaphysical. We can never be sure about its characteristics, and we can never be sure if there is or isnt a metaphysical. Well these issues aren't my strong spot. By the way i picked up the glib but decided to reply to it anyway haha. |
Registered: January 22, 2005
Posts: 870
|
quote: Also to an empiricist, something cannot be proven to not exist, only to not be known of, in fact very little can be proven at all or be known as definite or absolute.
This is true, but not helpful. You seem to be advocating a very extreme empiricism, the pursuit of which forces you to discount and concepts of love outside of biological attraction, negates the existence of poetry and so on. In essence everyone is an empiricist, but an empiricist of heuristic type that I was trying to explain before. Under this, much more useful, paradigm, it is possible to say that some things don't exist; for example, a strong empiricist of the type that you describe here should carry a silver bullet with them where ever they go, in case they encounter a werewolf and need to defend themselves. The heurisitc empiricist can disregard the existence of werewolves as actual biological phenomena, and go about thier lives untroubled at the rise of the full moon. On this same sort of paradigm, the lack of empirical evidence for god's existence, and an examination of the conditions of the universe as it currently exists leads one to conclude that there is no such thing as god. It seems unlikely, unlike the alien-life example, that any further evidence of god's existence will become apparent to us; we can see quite far across the universe now, and there doesn't appear to be that much going for it - hardly the best of all possible universes. quote: To an empiricist, however, the discovery of the playtpus only added new knowledge and did not conflict with any previous claims simply because empiricists dont make absolute claims.
Actually, I don't think that this example functions with quite the efficacy that you suggest it does. Presumably empiricists would be happy to say, now, that the definition of mammals can no longer be predicated on the quality of egg-laying, which would appear to be quite a definite and concrete statement. quote: Do you mean it requirs less to believe in a religion?
I think I was making rather a glib and not particularly funny joke. You meant that it required more effort to beleive in a religion, but the way you phrased it meant that faith steps in only when you remove the possibility orf empirical certainty. In essence, faith is a lack of facts - i.e. faith is less than certainty. Ha ha ha. Hilarious, I know. quote: In the second option u must have faith, and acknowledge that you can never really know.
This is true, but it isn't helpful. Most of our beliefs are constructed around at least a little certainty, and, under the strong empiricism you seem to be advocating, there can be no certainty at all - it flies in the face of what it is reasonable to beleive. Until you have a reason to believe something exists, there is no reason to believe that it does (so to speak) quote: Yes, but God doesnt have a physical form. Jesus had a phycial form but his body was a vessel for God.
I suspect that you may not realise quite what you seem to be suggesting here, and the majority of Christians (i.e. Catholics) would disagree emphatically with the second part of your statement; Jesus was not a vessel, but the Incarantion of god, both fully man and fully god simultaneously. And to answer the first part of your statement (and Milton had a great deal of trouble with this issue in Paradise Lost too) a few Genesis quotations that seem oddly human for an omnipotent metaphysical incoporeal spirit: Gen 2:2 'he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.' Gen 2:7 'and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;' Gen 3:8 'And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.' Anyway, you take my point. He is clearly figured as someone who is no omnipresent, and understood to have physical form and relation to the physical world, which should be impossible for some sort of "metaphysical being", whatever that might be. quote: Anyways, the point i was making in my earlier post is that, since we're so insignificant how can we be sure there is no other state of existence that is not physical.
Well, if there is some sort of "metaphysical being", and we believe that it exists, there aren't that many good reasons that we think it might exist elsewhere if it doesn't exist here. And if it does exist somewhere else but not here, would you want to know? After all, that would mean that we are excluded from metaphysical existence, and if that actually is the case, I think I'd prefer my current state of ignorance than know that it is possible, but not for human beings. I seem to remember reading a Philip K Dick short story where some aliens wonder if they should come to earth, and are repulsed by and contemptuous of the thought that these walking lumps of meat might have anything resembling thier level of consciousness. Don't know why I mentioned that really. Just for interest I suppose. quote: What, you dont miss me?
I have missed you, but not for as long. Haven't seen Worth in a long long time...
'I consider that there is nothing better or more enjoyable than life itself. It is not therefore to be wondered at if I am willing to purchase my life with my material possessions.' Geoffrey of Monmouth
|
Registered: April 21, 2008
Posts: 143
|
quote: we have very little reason (under the heuristic paradigm) to say that god exists, and more than enough evidence to say that he doesn't.
Evidence based on physical experience which cannot explain the metaphysical. The empirical way of gaining knowledge, is through experience which is all physical, thus emperical claims cannot be made about God and the afterlife. Also to an empiricist, something cannot be proven to not exist, only to not be known of, in fact very little can be proven at all or be known as definite or absolute. To an empiricit you can never make a final claim, instead knowledge is continious and so are claims made through empiricism. Ex. "We are the only intelligent life beings in our universe, based on the info we have up till now". If u recall the platypus dilema. To universalists, mammals cannot lay eggs thus the discovery of the platypus shattered their definition of mammals and some went as far as to cliam that the platypus was a hoax. To an empiricist, however, the discovery of the playtpus only added new knowledge and did not conflict with any previous claims simply because empiricists dont make absolute claims. For this reason, especially when looking through an empiricist lens, it cannot be claimed that God does not exist/ or exists. quote: Actually, strictly speaking, you mean less.
Do you mean it requirs less to believe in a religion? If so, the point i was making is that, hypothetically speaking, say God does exist and you were presented 2 options. The first option would be that i give u solid hard facts proving Gods existence. Second option, would be i give u a Bible and preach its teachings to you. Would it not be easier to just see the facts in option 1 and believe in God rather than rely on teachings of the Bible. In the first option you KNOW. In the second option u must have faith, and acknowledge that you can never really know. quote: But why is this a laudable, important or meaningful step?
Its not a step. I was adressing both sides of the issue. In the part of my post u quoted i was explaining to 'believers' that a blind faith isnt as 'strong', in my opinion, as a 'faith' that acknowledges the uncertainty that entails religion. quote: As does Jehovah, viz. Genesis
Yes, but God doesnt have a physical form. Jesus had a phycial form but his body was a vessel for God. As are all of us, but do a lesser degree, if you believe in Christianity. quote: you think it is 'childish' to imagine that you are tiny in the face of a universe, which according to Stephen Hawking has no beginning or end, and is so huge that we will never be able to tell quite how large it is, in part due to the relatively low speed of light?
No, you try to hard to find things that arent in my posts. Perhaps my sentence structure was not clear. First off, i clear acknowledge my existence in the universe is tiny by calling it a "puny state of existence". Yes i know, there is no metaphysical mind. I forgot the name of the school of thought, that emphasis this fact and states that all emotions, thoughts, etc. can be mapped neurologically eventually. But the followers of that school of thought do confess their awe in regard to the humans awarness of his existince. They dont believe that it can be mapped, but who knows, time will tell. Maybe that can be cut off too. Anyways, the point i was making in my earlier post is that, since we're so insignificant how can we be sure there is no other state of existence that is not physical. quote: First off, and most importantly, Worth, it's good to see you back again
What, you dont miss me? |
Registered: January 22, 2005
Posts: 870
|
First off, and most importantly, Worth, it's good to see you back again. And now to the business of replying: quote: Hughm states that you are free to BELIEVE that there is a God or that God doesnt exist, but you cannnot say you KNOW God exists or does not exist.
Actually I'm not sure that HUME makes it quite so clear cut as you seem to suggest. quote: No facts concerning the metaphysical can be made in a physical state of existence.
To an empiricist like Hume, this is as much to say as that they do not exist. Hume argues that all our knowledge is taken from experience, which by default means that we cannot have any (meaningful or accurate) knowledge of anything we cannot experience, which is tantamount to saying that things we cannot experience are irrelevant and may not exist. What we rely on then, is not an absolute standard of testing knowledge, but a heuristic (rule-of-thumb) type paradigm, that allows us to say (relatively meaningfully) that there is no such thing as a unicorn. Based on the devestating criticisms that Hume launched against traditional arguments for the existence of god, leaving pretty much nothing left (perhapos the ontological argument, which Kant finished off a little bit later anyway), we have very little reason (under the heuristic paradigm) to say that god exists, and more than enough evidence to say that he doesn't. quote: Any body can know there is a God if they were presented fact A, B, C. However, belief in a religion requires more.
Actually, strictly speaking, you mean less. quote: you will have a proper faith.
But why is this a laudable, important or meaningful step? quote: They had physical shapes and looks, as well as human charactersictics.
As does Jehovah, viz. Genesis. quote: There wasnt much about them that was metaphysical.
Aside from the fact that they were deities. quote: The way i look at it, there is a metaphysical state of existence because its childish to think my puny physicial state of existence is the only state of existence.
I'm not entirely sure I follow - you think it is 'childish' to imagine that you are tiny in the face of a universe, which according to Stephen Hawking has no beginning or end, and is so huge that we will never be able to tell quite how large it is, in part due to the relatively low speed of light? In fact, I think it seems more childish to think that there is a metaphysical state of existence. Look at the human brain for instance; cut off a particular part of it and you can't do maths anymore. Cut off another part and you become unable to recognise people's faces, though you can still see them perfectly. Does it make sense to say that the part of you that can do maths is not part of your 'metaphysical' "mind" or whatever? Doesn't it make more sense that what people commonly argue to be a metaphysical existence (that is, the human mind) is in fact simply the product of a physical brain? quote: Satan can not follow any of the ten comanment nor will he allow man kind
Well this is interesting. By which I mean: what? quote: Cause if God were a person's imagination, who created him?
Early humans looking to explain a place in the universe. The same phenomenon of religion creation is still happening today - Scientologists and the sci-fi novels of L. Ron Hubbard. quote:
Look around the world, we humans and the animals alike, we didnt just surface the earth from no where, there are so many explanations about God and all that he has done in the past and present.
I think that this may be crazy talk. No one in this debate is saying that animals (including humans) just sprung up from the ground like warriors from dragon's teeth. They are saying that evolution is the best explanation of how life has come to be what it is now, and that the theory of evolution is accepted by every major religious authority; the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Communion, the Pope etc. If these people think that evolution happened (and they are some of the most devout people on the planet) then I think it's probably time to just give in and accept it. Secondly, I don't quite understand the second half of your sentence. Reading it several times I'm not sure if you mean there are many reasons for believing in god's existence, or whether there are explanations for the idea of god, or whether you mean there are reasons for believing in lots of different gods.
'I consider that there is nothing better or more enjoyable than life itself. It is not therefore to be wondered at if I am willing to purchase my life with my material possessions.' Geoffrey of Monmouth
|
Registered: April 21, 2008
Posts: 143
|
The center of the issue is that God and the afterlife are metaphysical and our state of existence is physical. As Hughm said, there are no valid claims you can make about God's existence and the existence of the afterlife since you have never experienced or cannot recall your experience of the metaphysical. Hughm states that you are free to BELIEVE that there is a God or that God doesnt exist, but you cannnot say you KNOW God exists or does not exist. No facts concerning the metaphysical can be made in a physical state of existence. So all the science we rely on means nothing in this debate. Science cannot prove God's existence, nor can it disporve God's existence.
When a person believes in God, he has FAITH. You have faith in your religion, not "knowningness". Any body can know there is a God if they were presented fact A, B, C. However, belief in a religion requires more. To have faith, in my opinion, is to acknowledge the fact that there may not be a God and that you can never really know if there is a God in your physical state of existence. Once you are aware of this fact, and then choose to believe in God despite the "risk" you take of believing in the uncertain and commiting to a way of life, you will have a proper faith.
In reply to your question concerning the Greek "mythology". Greek gods were very "human". They had physical shapes and looks, as well as human charactersictics. Such as the drunkard and warrior. There wasnt much about them that was metaphysical. However, the bigger question concerning why God has chosen to appear to some and not all, and at different times i dont know. This is up to personal interpretation. The way i look at it, there is a metaphysical state of existence because its childish to think my puny physicial state of existence is the only state of existence. If this metaphysical state of existence has a conciousness then that being is referred to as God. Perhaps its God's plan to appear to us in different forms. Perhaps its a test to see how we will react to "others".
|
Registered: July 26, 2009
Posts: 4
|
There is supreme being known as the almighty God and the maker of the heavens and the earth including everything therein.
We all have a choice to accept the fact that there is a God who created the whole universe or not. I believe that there is a God and each time I pray to him about my needs, he answers me.
Look around the world, we humans and the animals alike, we didnt just surface the earth from no where, there are so many explanations about God and all that he has done in the past and present.
|
Registered: July 26, 2009
Posts: 4
|
quote: Originally posted by worthwaitingfor: quote: Originally posted by angelwarrior:
Wow....were to start.
God exists and you want proof
lets say a painter paints a picture a beautiful master peace
and you come by a day later and someone ask you "who painted this" and you tell them i guess the painter did but my question is how do you know you cannot see the painter only the painting how do you know that this specific painting didn't grow from nature.
This is not the same thing. Someone probably saw the painter painting at some point, and even if they didn't, he is probably known to be a painter - at some point in his past, someone witnessed him painting and the results of that effort. Aside from that, who in the world would think a painting grew from nature? I mean, that's just not scientifically possible. Even I know that, and I don't know ANYTHING about science. The poster you were replying to is correct - there is not proof (or enough proof, at least) that God is real or not. If it could be proven, few of these debates about religion would still be going on. Believing in God or not is something that you feel within yourself spiritually. Some Christians put some logic in there now and then too that makes sense to them (while the existence of God can't be proven, it hasn't been not proven either - meaning all of the scientific theories regarding creation are still just theories as well etc.), in the end none of that matters to someone who wants concrete proof. I don't know where my belief in God came from, other than my parents I guess, but I know that I can't rid myself of it either. I believe in God, and I always will unless it is proven beyond doubt that He doesn't exist. But for me that is personal. I don't expect everyone around me to believe in Him, and I can understand why it is difficult to do so without the kind of concrete proof we have for believing in the existence of other things.
|
Registered: June 14, 2004
Posts: 2743
|
quote: Originally posted by angelwarrior:
Wow....were to start.
God exists and you want proof
lets say a painter paints a picture a beautiful master peace
and you come by a day later and someone ask you "who painted this" and you tell them i guess the painter did but my question is how do you know you cannot see the painter only the painting how do you know that this specific painting didn't grow from nature.
This is not the same thing. Someone probably saw the painter painting at some point, and even if they didn't, he is probably known to be a painter - at some point in his past, someone witnessed him painting and the results of that effort. Aside from that, who in the world would think a painting grew from nature? I mean, that's just not scientifically possible. Even I know that, and I don't know ANYTHING about science. The poster you were replying to is correct - there is not proof (or enough proof, at least) that God is real or not. If it could be proven, few of these debates about religion would still be going on. Believing in God or not is something that you feel within yourself spiritually. Some Christians put some logic in there now and then too that makes sense to them (while the existence of God can't be proven, it hasn't been not proven either - meaning all of the scientific theories regarding creation are still just theories as well etc.), in the end none of that matters to someone who wants concrete proof. I don't know where my belief in God came from, other than my parents I guess, but I know that I can't rid myself of it either. I believe in God, and I always will unless it is proven beyond doubt that He doesn't exist. But for me that is personal. I don't expect everyone around me to believe in Him, and I can understand why it is difficult to do so without the kind of concrete proof we have for believing in the existence of other things.
Belief makes things real/Makes things feel, feel alright/Belief makes things true/Things like you, you and I
|
Registered: January 17, 2010
Posts: 5
|
quote: The boogeyman does exist...not in physical form no. But he does exist...
I wouldnt say that the boogey man exists. He's just a figament of someone's imagination. But God is a different story. Cause if God were a person's imagination, who created him?
Why take a life, when you can help it grow into something beautiful?
|
Registered: January 22, 2010
Posts: 1
|
Satan can not follow any of the ten comanment nor will he allow man kind,Satan has put a mans name before the Lords name and after(Jesus Chris the Lord and the Lord Jesus Christ)And whats up with all these Idols?You might not be what you think
NIGHTS tEMPLAR
|
Registered: April 15, 2003
Posts: 1496
|
words mean things welshey exist |igˈzist| verb [ intrans. ] 1 have objective reality or being : remains of these baths still exist on the south side of the Pantheon | there existed no organization to cope with espionage. • be found, esp. in a particular place or situation : two conflicting stereotypes of housework exist in popular thinking today. the boogeyman, in all likelihood, does not exist in objective reality. there is no actual boogeyman under your bed. the concept of a boogeyman in folklore certainly exists, but that's not the same as the boogeyman existing. the concept of a god exists in theology and mythology, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a god or gods actually exist.
She's mortal a meta-model Barbiesattva she's gotta lotta Prada-prana
|
Registered: November 22, 2009
Posts: 1
|
quote: So if I say "hmm, the boogeyman" and I understand him and can ask questions about him, he's real. Wow that totally makes sense.
The boogeyman does exist... not in a physical form no. But he does exist... Just because something doesent have a physical form doesent mean it doesent exist. God, is a form of hope, a person you can always rely on. Im not a follower in any religeon, but im not ignorant enough to fall to one side, i respect both, and can agree with both... |
Registered: April 07, 2007
Posts: 99
|
quote:
So you would agree that teachers (say, below university level) shouldn't be able to teach ID? I only say this because there is a lot of support for teaching ID alongside evolution/the big bang in science classes, and as a scientist I imagine that you would find this to be degrading to the teaching of science?
I think high school science teachers are degrading to science. Seriously though, I agree with your initial question. I am not for ID being taught in public high schools mainly because they are government funded. Even though I think there could be some scientific evidence behind it, public high school isn't the atmosphere to discuss such highly complicated topics that the best minds have been wrestling for years. Some students that age are still pretty impressionable and it becomes easy for a teacher to try to manipulate their position for what they view as the greater good. Along with that, I also think public high school teachers claiming science has disproven God is also inappropriate for the exact same reasons. Being from the south eastern US, I was exposed to a lot of teachers violating both of these "rules" I made up and it was always awkward, even if I agreed with what they were saying. quote: if they are academics, then they should abide by the standards set out by thier fields, thier universities and thier specific faculties as a matter of course, and especially stringently in the teaching of students. Believe what you want; teach only what should be taught.
What should be taught is the million dollar question with this issue. Personally I think as long as what they publish/teach is based on sound logic and good principles, then I don't see a problem, even if it ends up their conclusion is wrong (which is the case more often then not)
Vice is a monster of so frightful face, as to be hated needs but to be seen; but seen too often, familiar with her face, we first endure, then tolerate, then embrace. - Alexander Pope
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
