Questioning Religion

[a6m5]

For the demonic and antichrist parts, I know it's there, it is perhaps toned down for rather obvious reasons. Catholic priests I know that have a bit of common sense also don't preach against contraceptive methods, despite Vatican's official stand on the issue.

You could be right, along with the contributions, I wouldn't be surprised if they could differ regionally.

dont JW belive only so many people can be in heaven at once?

Yes, I think Famine's figure is correct. 144,000 will go to heaven, but to become angels/sprits or something like that. Rest will live on paradise/heaven on earth(earth after armageddon). I'm not an Jehovah's Witness, so I still could be wrong, but I think it's pretty accurate.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

All of us without exception, like Harry Calahan said, have to ask ourselves a question.And its not "Do you feel lucky punk"?. but "How did I get here"? That spawns more questions like, How did you get here? Where did all this come from? etc.etc.From that point on explanations and opinions abound. Who do you believe? What do youbelieve? What is the truth? Would I recognize the truth if I saw it? etc.etc. For the sake of space let's look at the two most commonly held explanations I know of: Evolution and Creation. Evolution says that all this came about thru cosmic happenstance and a blob of goo. Supposedly this is a scientific explanation, however when calculated mathematically the odds of this happening are the same as a car assembling itself out of a junkyard and you could get in it and drive it away. It's called a "mathematical impossibility". Them's pretty steep odds. The other problem I have with Evo is it is totally unrelatable. Nothing in
History or now came about that way. Everything has been designed and made, cars, houses, the fork you eat with,etc.etc. Creation has a Designer and Maker. To me that is a much more likely and better fit for our exsistence and a starting point for believability.
Well, I could go on and on, but I've given yall something to think about.

 

[Duke]

Evolution says that all this came about thru cosmic happenstance and a blob of goo. Supposedly this is a scientific explanation, however when calculated mathematically the odds of this happening are the same as a car assembling itself out of a junkyard and you could get in it and drive it away. It's called a "mathematical impossibility". Them's pretty steep odds.

This is what I can't understand and it's another of the fundamental issues that prevents me (saves me?) from accepting mysticism. Most religions are founded upon the concept of an infinitely-knowing, infinitely-powerful god or gods. Yet people who claim that life couldn't possibly have just happened this way can't seem to get their heads around the concepts of the universe being infinite (or nearly, depending on theory) in size and that billions of years is an incredibly long time. In something probably infinitely large, in a perpetual state of change for an almost infinitely long time, the rise of intelligent life somewhere (without the necessity of divine creation) is an almost mathematical certainty.

 

[Danoff]

Evolution says that all this came about thru cosmic happenstance and a blob of goo. Supposedly this is a scientific explanation, however when calculated mathematically the odds of this happening are the same as a car assembling itself out of a junkyard and you could get in it and drive it away. It's called a "mathematical impossibility". Them's pretty steep odds.

It's funny because that is exactly what happened. Nature went along and (through natural process of man gaining intelligence) cars were assembled such that we could get in it and drive away.

...and Duke hit the nail on the head. It's practically a mathematical certainty.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It's funny because that is exactly what happened. Nature went along and (through natural process of man gaining intelligence) cars were assembled such that we could get in it and drive away.

...and Duke hit the nail on the head. It's practically a mathematical certainty.

Dream on brother!

 

[Duke]

Dream on brother!

Right back at'cha, big guy.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

This is what I can't understand and it's another of the fundamental issues that prevents me (saves me?) from accepting mysticism. Most religions are founded upon the concept of an infinitely-knowing, infinitely-powerful god or gods. Yet people who claim that life couldn't possibly have just happened this way can't seem to get their heads around the concepts of the universe being infinite (or nearly, depending on theory) in size and that billions of years is an incredibly long time. In something probably infinitely large, in a perpetual state of change for an almost infinitely long time, the rise of intelligent life somewhere (without the necessity of divine creation) is an almost mathematical certainty.

Your making one extra LARGE assumption. That being the Billion year stuff.
In reality, life with us in it is only traceable back to about 5000 years.

 

[Danoff]

Your making one extra LARGE assumption. That being the Billion year stuff.
In reality, life with us in it is only traceable back to about 5000 years.

True. What about life without us in it?

 

[Duke]

Your making one extra LARGE assumption. That being the Billion year stuff.
In reality, life with us in it is only traceable back to about 5000 years.

I'm surprised you're willing to go that far back, frankly.

Personally life with me in it only goes back a little over 40 years. But I've seen evidence that the world existed before that, even though I wasn't physically here to see it. Same principle, just a bigger scale.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Would you bet your own money against "mathematically impossible" odds? I seriously doubt it. Why then would you bet your eternal security against them?

 

[Danoff]

Would you bet your own money against "mathematically impossible" odds? I seriously doubt it. Why then would you bet your eternal security against them?

Mathematical certainty.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

True. What about life without us in it?

Let me put it this way, as far back as you want to go everything reproduces after
its own kind. (the seed principle) Eventually you will get to the "chicken or the egg" question and what is a logical rational answer and what is off the wall speculation.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Mathematical certainty.

If your right you got nothing to worry about.
But if your wrong your in a world of hurt.
Like I said "Them's pretty steep odds"

 

[Danoff]

If your right you got nothing to worry about.
But if your wrong your in a world of hurt.
Like I said "Them's pretty steep odds"

I don't think they are steep odds. You should check out the "religion is contrived" thread.

I claim that if in the next 5 minutes you don't find a way to balance an egg on your forehead then your soul will be enternally tortured.

You probably don't think that's the case.

If you're right, you got nothing to worry about.
If you're wrong, you're in for a world of hurt.

 

[Duke]

Would you bet your own money against "mathematically impossible" odds? I seriously doubt it. Why then would you bet your eternal security against them?

But I'm not betting for "mathematicallly impossible" odds. I'm betting against them, on an almost sure thing. Besides, there's absolutely no positive evidence that there is such a thing as "eternal security". There's no evidence against it, either, but if I believed every possible thing there was no evidence against, I'd have collapsed into dribbling insanity about 30 years ago.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I don't think they are steep odds. You should check out the "religion is contrived" thread.

I claim that if in the next 5 minutes you don't find a way to balance an egg on your forehead then your soul will be enternally tortured.

You probably don't think that's the case.

If you're right, you got nothing to worry about.
If you're wrong, you're in for a world of hurt.

Why if I'm wrong would I be in a world of hurt. It won't matter will it?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

But I'm not betting for "mathematicallly impossible" odds. I'm betting against them, on an almost sure thing. Besides, there's absolutely no positive evidence that there is such a thing as "eternal security". There's no evidence against it, either, but if I believed every possible thing there was no evidence against, I'd have collapsed into dribbling insanity about 30 years ago.

Check out some info on "Near Death Experiences" of which there are many documented cases. You might change your mind.

 

[Famine]

Your making one extra LARGE assumption. That being the Billion year stuff.
In reality, life with us in it is only traceable back to about 5000 years.

Back on planet Earth, however, evidence of the existence of the Hominids dates back nearly 260,000 years, with Homo sapiens sapiens being at least 40,000 years old.

Let me put it this way, as far back as you want to go everything reproduces after its own kind. (the seed principle)

Err, no.

Lions breed with tigers all the time. They are genetically quite different, but the number of chromosomes and the relative compatibility of feline germ cells makes it possible. The offspring are fertile - as opposed to the mule (a horse/donkey cross - two more speices which can crossbreed) - and called "Ligers" (in the case of males) or "Tigons" (in the case of females.

And then we have the current programme to reintroduce the Quagga by Zebra/Horse crossbreeding.


Just because you haven't been told this information (or bothered to find it out for yourself) doesn't mean it's not true. Which is handy, because it is.

Eventually you will get to the "chicken or the egg" question and what is a logical rational answer and what is off the wall speculation.

The egg came first, obviously. Speculation is not required.

Check out some info on "Near Death Experiences" of which there are many documented cases. You might change your mind.

I have done.

Under controlled circumstances where the brain is starved of oxygen - these tests were conducted in aeronautic centrifuges - pilots also reported NDEs, despite not being at any risk from death. Further neurological study shows that the brain shuts down extraneous functions and retreats into a "dream" state - in order to protect itself for when the oxygen/blood might be coming back. The net result is that people report weird dreams, seeing themselves above their own bodies (the most recent event that the brain processed - it then contrives a "story" along those lines, much as you do when you dream) and so on.

Then again, neuropathology isn't exactly brain surgery.

 

[Duke]

Why if I'm wrong would I be in a world of hurt. It won't matter will it?

Then why will it matter if we don't accept the possibility of God punishing us for not believing? In case you hadn't noticed, danoff is simply reversing your own statements and putting them back on you to see your reaction.

Your mystic book says that nonbelievers will be damned if they do not accept Salvation before they die. danoff's mystic book says that people who can't balance an egg on their forehead in the next 5 minutes will be damned. How can you prove that he is wrong?

Check out some info on "Near Death Experiences" of which there are many documented cases. You might change your mind.

I'm familiar with the whole "white light" thing. That's still not postive evidence that there is life after death.

 

[Delirious]

the proof is there...not hard to find...ive given you proof via links...even if you find proof, you will not believe unless you have faith

"Jesus Christ WAS his name. As mine is let's say...Bob. Does that mean I am now Bob, Joe, John, and Dave too? Or are those just renderings...?"

PS...thats legalism

im done

 

[Famine]

I've read everything you've provided - and found heresay, double-speak, pseudo-science and extremely pseudo-logic (back to the painting analogy again).

You've also not noticed that logic dictates that where proof exists, faith does not. Ergo there can be no proof of your Faith or your God since proof denies the existence of faith. Proof of God's existence is actually proof of God's non-existence.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Here's another one for you, fellas:
Is there really such thing as "something for nothing", No, "Free lunch", No, "Pie in the sky"
No, "A boss who will pay you for doing nothing", No.
Expectations come with all value given.
In the same premise, it is not that difficult to understand and believe that God will want an account of what you did with the life he gave you here when its over.
What do you think?

 

[Famine]

I think you're ignoring everything anyone has said to you and are just ploddng onwards trying to "save" them.

 

[Anderton Prime]

SuperCobraJet, you're making a fine case for what TaceBlue hates...that is, Christians (or other religious people) who try to convince everyone else to believe in what they believe in. According to XVII you're supposed to find your own faith, and no one can give you faith; it has to come from within you. And I've tried to tell everyone in here that there is absolutely NO possibility that a person who believes in God is going to change the mind of a highly scientific person like Famine or neon_duke. Especially not in an online forum, where you haven't even met anyone in here before. So why do you persist in trying to push your wares on everyone else? It is to no avail. Instead, why don't you spend your time strengthening your own faith and let everyone else go as they wish? You won't see me telling people they're doomed for believing in Creationism, and I believe in God!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I think you're ignoring everything anyone has said to you and are just ploddng onwards trying to "save" them.

I can't save anybody. Only the Lord Jesus Christ can and he said it, I didn't say it.
I'm only trying to point out some logical rational reasons to do so

 

[Famine]

I can't save anybody. Only the Lord Jesus Christ can and he said it,

When? Where? Who documented this? Are there any primary sources (meaning people who were there) of evidence?

I'm only trying to point out some logical rational reasons to do so

"Logical" and "rational" are two conditions almost totally absent from any of your - or XVII's - posts on this subject.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

SuperCobraJet, you're making a fine case for what TaceBlue hates...that is, Christians (or other religious people) who try to convince everyone else to believe in what they believe in. According to XVII you're supposed to find your own faith, and no one can give you faith; it has to come from within you. And I've tried to tell everyone in here that there is absolutely NO possibility that a person who believes in God is going to change the mind of a highly scientific person like Famine or neon_duke. Especially not in an online forum, where you haven't even met anyone in here before. So why do you persist in trying to push your wares on everyone else? It is to no avail. Instead, why don't you spend your time strengthening your own faith and let everyone else go as they wish? You won't see me telling people they're doomed for believing in Creationism, and I believe in God!

If you are a scientific person, you certainly see the complexities and intracatecies
of life all around, but yet you can say this has all come about by happenstance.
This does not compute. Every fiber of your being has to yearn for a better answer than that. And you say I'm not logical. I beg to differ.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

When? Where? Who documented this? Are there any primary sources (meaning people who were there) of evidence?



"Logical" and "rational" are two conditions almost totally absent from any of your - or XVII's - posts on this subject.

It's in the Bible friend.

 

[Famine]

So that'll be a "No" then?

This does not compute.

I was hoping someone would say that.

Evolution has been modelled on computers - using short lifespan, short generation time models. It has also been modelled with robots.

"Compute" is something Evolution most certainly does.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So that'll be a "No" then?

How many witnesses are enough. There's Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
James, Mary. Thats plenty enough to prove it in a court of law.