- 891
- Revelation1115
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,488 comments
- 1,140,312 views
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Well, if you're Christian or Jewish, it's the same God. That's right, the three religions all worship the same Abrahamic God.
- 891
- Revelation1115
- 24,638
- Anoka, MN
Their the same god!!!!!
And every religion has nutjobs who bomb innocent people. It doesn't mean the religion is wrong or "stupid" it just means some people really over do it.
- 14,060
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
I think the same thing about Loyalists in Ulster. Militant Loyalists form a tiny minority of Protestants, same thing with Islamic terrorists being a tiny minority of Muslims. You need to stop watching Fox News, and besides, the US has dropped many a bomb on populated areas, hoping that among the dozens of corpses of average Muslims that there's 1 or 2 dead Islamic militants.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
It. Is. The. Same. God.
And there's no Christian fundamentalist nutjobs either?
godhatesfags.com, there's one (rather, there's a lot of them)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedomites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence_in_the_United_States#United_States
Last edited:
- 2,343
- Atlanta, GA
- WallRunner51
Same God, Different Prophets/Teachers/Saviors. There is nothing I have read in the Old or New Testament commanding women (or anyone) to wear anything resembling a Burqa. If I am wrong here, I apologize.
From,
Chris.
From,
Chris.
- 680
- dissidentcook
- 891
- Revelation1115
sorry.
- 1,499
- Darkest Kent....
- Slackbladder
- DarkSideDaMoon
Well, looks like 48% of those who took part in the poll are on par with Nazi's, according to the Pope (God bless him)! www.bbc.co.uk
And no, there is no God. It is simply indoctrination.
Wiki
And no, there is no God. It is simply indoctrination.
Wiki
boiltheocean
Premium
- 7,756
- Samoa
Woah that's rich coming from the Hitler Youth. What a Tool.
- 381
Too bad the Pope forgets about these gems:
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. (Adolf Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941)
I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our almighty creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work. (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 65)
Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it. (Adolf Hitler)
The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life. (Adolf Hitler, Berlin, 1933, first radio address after coming to power)
The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. (Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichstag, March 1933)
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. We need believing people. (Adolf Hitler, April 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat)
The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with fascist Italy, proves beyond doubt that the fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism.
(Adolf Hitler in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, 1929)
I am personally convinced of the great power and deep significance of Christianity, and I won't allow any other religion to be promoted. (Adolf Hitler)
As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy which the Catholic church has adopted for fifteen hundred years, when it has regarded the Jews as dangerous and pushed them into ghettos etc., because it knew what the Jews were like. I don't put race above religion, but I do see the danger in the representatives of this race for Church and State, and perhaps I am doing Christianity a great service. (Adolf Hitler)
The work that Christ started but could not finish, I, Adolf Hitler, will conclude. (Adolf Hitler, December 1926)
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. (Adolf Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941)
I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our almighty creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work. (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 65)
Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it. (Adolf Hitler)
The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life. (Adolf Hitler, Berlin, 1933, first radio address after coming to power)
The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. (Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichstag, March 1933)
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. We need believing people. (Adolf Hitler, April 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat)
The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with fascist Italy, proves beyond doubt that the fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism.
(Adolf Hitler in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, 1929)
I am personally convinced of the great power and deep significance of Christianity, and I won't allow any other religion to be promoted. (Adolf Hitler)
As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy which the Catholic church has adopted for fifteen hundred years, when it has regarded the Jews as dangerous and pushed them into ghettos etc., because it knew what the Jews were like. I don't put race above religion, but I do see the danger in the representatives of this race for Church and State, and perhaps I am doing Christianity a great service. (Adolf Hitler)
The work that Christ started but could not finish, I, Adolf Hitler, will conclude. (Adolf Hitler, December 1926)
- 891
- Revelation1115
- 381
Which one?
http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods/listofgods.html
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (Stephen Henry Roberts)
So far so good. Just makes me wonder why my country is so screwed.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
- 514
- GTBR_Joker
I believe in God, but not in that Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox stuff.
- 85
- Skymeat1
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Here's an interesting article summarizing the state of play between scientists and religionists, with many of the important players and problems named.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-paulson/science-religion-divide_b_756309.html
Undoubtedly the most important problem today is the one of multiple universes. This problem is paramount for the following reasons:
1) The universe we can see and study is conceded by both scientists and believers to be fine-tuned to allow for human existence. In other words, the specific parameters and constants of gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, subatomic particle physics, and including the macroscopic properties of matter up to the galactic scale must be just what they are --or else life could not exist.
2) While this is satisfying to believers, it is intolerable to most scientists. This is because it is "Anti-Copernican", or "anthropocentric", or non-random. It makes the atheist scientist squirm to think that there is design and purpose in the universe, and that design and purpose is all about mankind.
3) In order to restore randomness, and hence scientific credibility, the typical cosmological scientist insists that a near-infinite number of other universes must exist in order that randomness be restored, and humanity is no longer the object of the exercise. Our living universe is balanced by numerous dead ones, they say.
4) The fly in the ointment is that there are currently no evidences or observations that would validate the notion of multiple universes. Of course, there are abstruse mathematical theories, but nothing empirical, not yet.
In my own extremely humble view, I think that both sides are wide of the mark. But that is a story for another post. In the meantime, we can take pleasure in each new observation (often taken at public expense!) of the starry heavens and subatomic realms that sheds objective light on the puzzle. To think that only yesterday we were coming down from the trees, and tomorrow we may really and finally know the origin and destiny of it all.
Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-paulson/science-religion-divide_b_756309.html
Undoubtedly the most important problem today is the one of multiple universes. This problem is paramount for the following reasons:
1) The universe we can see and study is conceded by both scientists and believers to be fine-tuned to allow for human existence. In other words, the specific parameters and constants of gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, subatomic particle physics, and including the macroscopic properties of matter up to the galactic scale must be just what they are --or else life could not exist.
2) While this is satisfying to believers, it is intolerable to most scientists. This is because it is "Anti-Copernican", or "anthropocentric", or non-random. It makes the atheist scientist squirm to think that there is design and purpose in the universe, and that design and purpose is all about mankind.
3) In order to restore randomness, and hence scientific credibility, the typical cosmological scientist insists that a near-infinite number of other universes must exist in order that randomness be restored, and humanity is no longer the object of the exercise. Our living universe is balanced by numerous dead ones, they say.
4) The fly in the ointment is that there are currently no evidences or observations that would validate the notion of multiple universes. Of course, there are abstruse mathematical theories, but nothing empirical, not yet.
In my own extremely humble view, I think that both sides are wide of the mark. But that is a story for another post. In the meantime, we can take pleasure in each new observation (often taken at public expense!) of the starry heavens and subatomic realms that sheds objective light on the puzzle. To think that only yesterday we were coming down from the trees, and tomorrow we may really and finally know the origin and destiny of it all.
Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
From what I have read on the subject, the narrowness of that "must be just so or life could not exist" band of conditions has been heavily overstated. "Life as we know it", maybe, and "narrow on a cosmological scale", possibly, but it is nowhere near as incredible as saying that "if a single thing was even slightly different, there is no possibility that life could occur."
Honestly, every time our viewing resolution improves, we discover a boatload of new potentially Earth-like planets in potentially Sol-like systems just about everywhere we point the 'scope. It's really not as razor-thin a margin as all that.
Honestly, every time our viewing resolution improves, we discover a boatload of new potentially Earth-like planets in potentially Sol-like systems just about everywhere we point the 'scope. It's really not as razor-thin a margin as all that.
- 29,372
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
While some may believe that the universe is 'fine-tuned to allow for human existence', many others think that human existence is merely a consequence of these physical parameters being the way they are. Those who believe that the laws of physics and the physical parameters that exist in nature were 'designed' to create intelligent life need to do alot more than simply cite our existence as evidence.
The main problem with the design argument with regard to the laws of physics is that it is basically the same argument as that put forth with regard to other things (such as the design of species, and the design of the solar system) that have long since been refuted by evidence. It was once believed that all species on Earth were individually created and designed... we now know that this wasn't the case, but that modern day species are a product of evolution. The design argument was also applied to the 'perfect' positioning of the Earth to be 'just right' for us, but we now know that solar systems are abundant and that life will probably only thrive on planets who happen to enjoy conditions that are right for life, such as our own. With such a great number of solar systems in such a great number of galaxies, is it any shock that some planets 'just so happen' to have conditions conducive for life?
The same flaws can be found in the design argument when applied to nigh on everything else. While a small difference in any number of physical parameters might have spelt immediate failure for a fledgling universe, clearly our universe didn't have those flaws and thus survived for long enough to produce intelligence. Just as our planet was once believed to be a unique oasis in the cosmos, so our universe may not be the only one that ever came into existence. Either way, I find the design argument for the universe and for the laws of physics to be about as compelling as the argument that human beings were designed...
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
All good and interesting points. I also doubt the universe is fine-tuned for human existence. This is because 99.999% of the universe is incompatible with biological life. If the universe was designed, it was either done badly, or designed for some other purpose than biological/human life.
Still, I wonder why those who do plump so hard for multiple universes (Hawking, et al) do so in the primary attempt to theoretically falsify the fine-tuning hypothesis? It seems the quest to find testable answers to the ultimate questions is still afoot in the minds, laboratories and celestial observatories of men. If the answers were already at hand, there would be no call nor justification for public funding of research such as is ongoing, yes?
Yours,
Dotini
Last edited:
Similar threads
