Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Jesus
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #216787 is a reply to message #215250] |
Sat, 02 September 2006 00:39   |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
ARGUMENT FROM FAITH IN THE OBVIOUS
(1) You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, don't you?
(2) See! Atheists have faith too!
(3) Just like I have faith in Jesus.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #216811 is a reply to message #216787] |
Sat, 02 September 2006 04:34 |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 03:39 |
ARGUMENT FROM FAITH IN THE OBVIOUS
(1) You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, don't you?
(2) See! Atheists have faith too!
(3) Just like I have faith in Jesus.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
|
We're not talking about the "obvious" we're talking about the logical.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #216822 is a reply to message #216771] |
Sat, 02 September 2006 07:44 |
 |
Goztow
Messages: 9718
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 12
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 06:52 |
| Crimson wrote on Fri, 01 September 2006 17:39 |
Yeah, I can't make myself believe in something when all logic in my brain tells me otherwise. :\
|
So do you believe in love?
|
Intresting remark, ACK.
You can find me in The KOSs2 (TK2) discord while I'm playing. Feel free to come and say hi! TK2 discord
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #216847 is a reply to message #215250] |
Sat, 02 September 2006 09:54 |
 |
Scythar
Messages: 580
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I don't see what's so illogical about love, to be honest. Because it just happens and you can't choose when? You can't choose many other emotions either. You can't choose to be angry or sad, it's a feeling that simply happens after certain events. Being angry is often very illogical, since attacking someone usually gets *you* in trouble, instead of the other. But I'm sure our brains don't consider our jurisdic systems when it decides a person should be hated, that happens in more conscious levels.
Same with love. Just because you can fall in love with a person who is geographically or morally unreachable doesn't mean it's illogical. It more likely just means that either a) the person "higher in ranks"and harder to reach is a more desirable target since a safe life with him/her is more likely, or b) The idea that a person can be somehow "unreachable" is very recent when compared to the lifespan of life on earth, and so our brain can't take such facts into account when love happens.
From our current point of view, yes, love is illogical. But when you consider love as part of the development of our species, it's suddenly more logical again. That's the problem, isn't it? We can't decide whether something is logical or not, since we base our facts on things we know, which are likely often not true or just parts of truth.
Do you think God thinks love is logical? Is God capable of understanding what makes love happen? Most likely, it would certainly make God less God if something was illogical to him. The more knowledge you have, the more logical things seem, no? But if someone or something is capable of viewing something as logical, i.e. love, then why should we not try to achieve the same point of view?
That last bit is a bit outside of the argument, but I think it's worth adding it.
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
[Updated on: Sun, 03 September 2006 02:08] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217000 is a reply to message #215250] |
Sat, 02 September 2006 22:02 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I guess in the grand scheme of things, I don't know if I actually believe in love. If you look at evolution, how the strongest survive, it could be that somewhere along the way, a woman had a child and developed this fierce desire to protect, amongst other women who regarded their children passively. And with a mother to protect it and hear its cry while sleeping, these children survived while the others were carried off my wild animals while their mothers slept obliviously on.
Think about it... men have this hormonal, instinctual desire to have sex and lots of it. This is necessary for procreation. Women, both through societal influences and instinct, get a desire to have children. These evolutionary result which ensures the survival of our species, requires that most or all people want to have children, And that they love their children unconditionally. There seems to be a distinctly low percentage of parents who get married and decide they want to have offspring and pass on their seed rather than those who have babies to take advantage of laws or rules of society (to get across the border "legally", to hook a man and his money, etc).
So, basically, love is an instinct that evolved because the connection we call "love" ensures the survival of our species.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217122 is a reply to message #215250] |
Sun, 03 September 2006 15:39 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
No, for the reasons I stated. Human babies are weak and helpless and need protection from their parents in order to survive the first decade or so of their lives. Without the instinctual feeling of love for a child, the baby is left to its own devices and quickly dies, ensuring the human race stops.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217133 is a reply to message #215250] |
Sun, 03 September 2006 17:20 |
|
|
Shall we define love as a very strong feeling of attraction to a particular member of the oppoesite sex? (something close to that is probably good enough)
I think Crimson is right, it's there so the parent who, being "grown up" and physically strong can kill the big, scary lion-esque animal which wants to eat the defenceless child.
It's our physically large brains that give us this whole problem in the first place. Lambs, for example, can walk within a few hours of their birth. I'm not sure for humans, but I know it's not a few hours.
But, that was a good comment ACK; Love, I'm sure, has made many people, do many, very crazy things. It does SEEM ilogical.
Love, however, can only be ilogical to the social barriers we put up, as people, for ourselves (wow, this again! see the "what the bleep do we know" topic) Social barriers, which only exist whilst we choose to let them do so.
Debate on!
(edit was typos and making my last sentence a little clearer)
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
[Updated on: Sun, 03 September 2006 17:22] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217154 is a reply to message #217122] |
Sun, 03 September 2006 22:00 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 18:39 |
No, for the reasons I stated. Human babies are weak and helpless and need protection from their parents in order to survive the first decade or so of their lives. Without the instinctual feeling of love for a child, the baby is left to its own devices and quickly dies, ensuring the human race stops.
|
My mistake for not being more clear; I was not referring simply to the love, compassion, and sympathy a parent feels for its defenseless child--an easy case can be made there for those specific emotions.
I was speaking more generally. What evolutionary purpose does compassion for the impoverished and sympathy for the sick serve? Wouldn't it better serve the greater good of the species if our weakest members were simply removed from the gene pool?
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217159 is a reply to message #217154] |
Sun, 03 September 2006 22:21 |
 |
Kamuix
Messages: 1247
Registered: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Hydra wrote on Mon, 04 September 2006 01:00 |
| Crimson wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 18:39 |
No, for the reasons I stated. Human babies are weak and helpless and need protection from their parents in order to survive the first decade or so of their lives. Without the instinctual feeling of love for a child, the baby is left to its own devices and quickly dies, ensuring the human race stops.
|
My mistake for not being more clear; I was not referring simply to the love, compassion, and sympathy a parent feels for its defenseless child--an easy case can be made there for those specific emotions.
I was speaking more generally. What evolutionary purpose does compassion for the impoverished and sympathy for the sick serve? Wouldn't it better serve the greater good of the species if our weakest members were simply removed from the gene pool?
|
Nevermind, better not say that.
[Updated on: Sun, 03 September 2006 22:23] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217362 is a reply to message #215250] |
Mon, 04 September 2006 18:16 |
|
|
Reaserch JESUITS
Seriously people how can you fight a war on terrorism with all of your borders wide open!
The Goverment Has Failed All Of You.
Americas Founding Fathers Must Be Turing In Their Graves, As Well As Every Revolutionary, Every Soldier That Has Fought For This Great Country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217435 is a reply to message #217154] |
Tue, 05 September 2006 05:32 |
|
Scythar
Messages: 580
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Hydra wrote on Mon, 04 September 2006 01:00 |
I was speaking more generally. What evolutionary purpose does compassion for the impoverished and sympathy for the sick serve? Wouldn't it better serve the greater good of the species if our weakest members were simply removed from the gene pool?
|
But where would you draw the line? By "weakest members", do you mean "everyone but the strongest"? That would mean everyone but one would be removed by natural selection (or the instinct of survival, if you will), and would result in the end of human race. There has to be a balance.
Isn't compassion more or less part of empathy? It's the opposite of instinct of survival. Too much instinct of survival would mean that a race would destroy itself, when individuals would attack each others. Compassion for the weak works in the opposite way, no? Too much causes everyone to sacrifice themselves for the others, resulting in extinction. Too little of it causes everyone to attack each others, resulting in the same extinction. It's like the immune system in our body. Too good immune system causes allergies when your own body acts violently against itself and things benefical to it. Too weak immune system causes your body to die to sicknesses. Also, we obviously don't like being alone. It makes us sad, perhaps unsafe too, when people close to us die. Sadness in turn can result in depression and suicidal behavior, which is not good for any race.
In our modern everyday lives compassion(empathy) is very strong. We're safe. But all it takes is some major threatening event like war and the emount of compassion decreases massively, and the instinct of survival increases. It's easy to say "Oh I'd never hurt anyone" now when you're sitting there by the PC, but if you had to choose between your life and the other's in a real situation...well, that's where many people really pick a side.
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
[Updated on: Tue, 05 September 2006 05:36] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217609 is a reply to message #217154] |
Wed, 06 September 2006 06:16 |
|
|
| Hydra wrote on Mon, 04 September 2006 00:00 |
| Crimson wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 18:39 |
No, for the reasons I stated. Human babies are weak and helpless and need protection from their parents in order to survive the first decade or so of their lives. Without the instinctual feeling of love for a child, the baby is left to its own devices and quickly dies, ensuring the human race stops.
|
My mistake for not being more clear; I was not referring simply to the love, compassion, and sympathy a parent feels for its defenseless child--an easy case can be made there for those specific emotions.
I was speaking more generally. What evolutionary purpose does compassion for the impoverished and sympathy for the sick serve? Wouldn't it better serve the greater good of the species if our weakest members were simply removed from the gene pool?
|
You want to start deciding who goes? You'll be killing people's family etc etc. And the moment you say "You're weak" and shoot someone, everyone would like to see the back of you.
That idea (I forget it's name) used to be widely accepted in America. That was before WWII. It was quietly dropped when
the Nazis started commiting acts of genocide, showing them how the idea would have to be implemented.
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217718 is a reply to message #215250] |
Wed, 06 September 2006 15:20 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
It's called eugenics. And history has proven time and time again that eugenics just doesn't work where humans are concerned.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217757 is a reply to message #215250] |
Wed, 06 September 2006 17:12 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
(Kinda makes you wonder about euthenasia and abortion, doesn't it?)
If I were more motivated, I would have continued on this course of discussion, but I'll just go ahead and give away what my point was in bringing up that subject. It'd be more strong, of course, had I gone along with what I was planning, but whatever; I don't feel lke dealing with it.
Here's another post I wrote on the APB forums from a thread about a similar subject (I don't see the reason to come up with something more original since it was about a similar subject) (Iscream4pork is an atheist):
| Hydra |
| Iscream4pork |
I believe that Atheism doesn't have an explanation for emotions, But
| Quote: |
the law written on the heart actually comes from the bible where, I believe Paul, noticed the gentiles were nice even though they were not of his faith, or more correctly i suppose--not Jewish. It is thought that everyone is born with this inner instinct, or that God intended it to be there...depending on what you believe.
|
I said this. Basically, almost all People areinherently are born with the sense to not treat other humans unkindly for no reason.
Like I said, You can say genetics or God either way. But that is how I think most atheists would argue that.
|
And I would argue that those emotions exist because we were created from, by, to, and simply for love, which is the central message of the entire Christian religion. We're here to love God and love people. That's why most of us feel at least a little guilty when we do something that might end up hurting another person. That's why we all feel so sorry when we see those pictures on TV of starving children in Africa and those ads asking for people to sponser a child and pay money to a Christian (there's that evil, oppressive religion again, shoving its beliefs down others' throats) organization that will provide that child with an education and basic medical care and opportunities that their parents maybe never had.
There is no evolutionary reason for those "feeling sorry for others" emotions to exist.
You may say it's because we needed them to survive early in our existence (which, once again, atheism cannot explain), and out of the bonds formed with other humans, complex societies evolved and solidified such emotions.
Let's take a look, however, at some other species that are almost as old as the human race and also exhibits a semblence of a society among members: the wolf.
Wolves are pack animals. They travel in groups so their chances of surviving in harsh conditions are better. They hunt in groups because they have learned that they have remarkable strengths in numbers; a small group of wolves could fight with a large bear, which would easily win in a one-on-one situation, and still emerge victorious simply because there were more wolves than the bear could handle. Wolves will fight viciously to protect their young; otherwise, the group cannot grow and will eventually die out. Wolves even have a bit of a heirarchy as to who is in charge, apparent in the leadership of the largest male, called the alpha male.
Yet these wolves do not necessarily share the same emotions humans do for one another. Do wolves experience or even know love? Of course not. They are driven by instinct and the need to survive. When an old and weak alpha male is challenged and beaten by a younger, faster, and stronger male, do the other wolves tend to the beaten wolf and lick his wounds? Of course not! They ostracize him from their society because he has been beaten by a wolf better than him.
In fact, it would be detrimental to the wolf pack if they kept the old dog because he would become a burden on the pack.
If I'm not mistaken, they do similar things not just to beaten alpha males but also their sick, decrepit, and physically handicapped. Think a wolf without a sense of smell carries much value to a wolf pack?
So what evolutionary sense would it make for us humans, who, apparently, are no better than other animals since we are animals ourselves, to care for our sick; to care for our elderly; to try to fix genetic disorders that are present in our gene pool; to try to fix foreign societies; to help our poor; to feel emotions that make us care about one another?
If you accept this world at face value and close your mind to all possible religion and accept no higher purpose other than to live for yourself, there is no reason to care about the suffering of others. You are supposed to sit back and let mother nature run her course through the human race and kill off those who are weak, who are debilitated, and who are of no value to society.
|
Oh well. That's as far as I'll go with that tangent.
We'll now return to our regularly scheduled bickering.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Wed, 06 September 2006 17:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217772 is a reply to message #217767] |
Wed, 06 September 2006 18:33 |
|
|
| mjfabian wrote on Wed, 06 September 2006 21:22 |
"Faith," by definition, is the firm belief in something which cannot be proven. Religion is faith based. Arguing about something that has no real right answer seems like a waste of time to me...
|
Yes, but it's still a subject that inspires debate/arguing. It's something that we hold close to us. Especially if someone calls me closed-minded because I disagree with them.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217820 is a reply to message #217757] |
Thu, 07 September 2006 02:09 |
|
Scythar
Messages: 580
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 06 September 2006 20:12 |
Let's take a look, however, at some other species that are almost as old as the human race and also exhibits a semblence of a society among members: the wolf.
Wolves are pack animals. They travel in groups so their chances of surviving in harsh conditions are better. They hunt in groups because they have learned that they have remarkable strengths in numbers; a small group of wolves could fight with a large bear, which would easily win in a one-on-one situation, and still emerge victorious simply because there were more wolves than the bear could handle. Wolves will fight viciously to protect their young; otherwise, the group cannot grow and will eventually die out. Wolves even have a bit of a heirarchy as to who is in charge, apparent in the leadership of the largest male, called the alpha male.
Yet these wolves do not necessarily share the same emotions humans do for one another. Do wolves experience or even know love? Of course not. They are driven by instinct and the need to survive. When an old and weak alpha male is challenged and beaten by a younger, faster, and stronger male, do the other wolves tend to the beaten wolf and lick his wounds? Of course not! They ostracize him from their society because he has been beaten by a wolf better than him.
In fact, it would be detrimental to the wolf pack if they kept the old dog because he would become a burden on the pack.
If I'm not mistaken, they do similar things not just to beaten alpha males but also their sick, decrepit, and physically handicapped. Think a wolf without a sense of smell carries much value to a wolf pack?
|
Wolves aren't driven by the instinct of survival alone. As I claimed in my earlier post, no species are. It's not possible. The fact that wolves are living in packs alone means that they trust the other members of the pack. They live in the wild, and in constant danger of starvation. They don't have the luxury of tending their weaker members. If they start caring for the weak, their whole pack is likely to die.
Put it this way: would you save a mans life if it meant your whole family had high chances of getting killed because of it? Would you seriously place your friends and sisters life on the line because you want to save some individual? It's easy to judge like that when you're sitting there in a safe society, but just look into any warfield and you'll see that we human don't act any differently than animals when our lifes are in serious danger.
| Quote: |
So what evolutionary sense would it make for us humans, who, apparently, are no better than other animals since we are animals ourselves, to care for our sick; to care for our elderly; to try to fix genetic disorders that are present in our gene pool; to try to fix foreign societies; to help our poor; to feel emotions that make us care about one another?
|
Again, sacrificing yourself for others and sacrificing others for yourself are in balance in nature. As I said in my previous post, too much of either will mean the end of a species. We are capable of compassion because we live in a safe world, so other species who actually have to fight for their existence seem brutal to us.
| Quote: |
If you accept this world at face value and close your mind to all possible religion and accept no higher purpose other than to live for yourself, there is no reason to care about the suffering of others. You are supposed to sit back and let mother nature run her course through the human race and kill off those who are weak, who are debilitated, and who are of no value to society.
|
That's not necessary for as long as our survival isn't threatened by compassion.
I think it like a line:
Instinct of compassion,
survival, ------------------------1-------2---sacrificing
sacrificing ------------------------1-------2---yourself for
others for others.
yourself.
#1 is where we are, #2 is where most animals are. Animals have a lot more instinct of survival than us, and on the other hand, we have more compassion.
Also, how about this:
I have a dog, Sere, a german shepherd. We often play around, not by just throwing a ball but by teasing each others, e.g. I try to pinch his tail and he tries to evade and bites me gently. However, sometimes he bites too hard and I shout, and he immediately stops the play and comes close, tries to lick my hand and face, how do you explain that? And no, I don't punish him with pain when he does something wrong, so it's not fear of a punishment.
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
[Updated on: Thu, 07 September 2006 03:42] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #217882 is a reply to message #215250] |
Thu, 07 September 2006 11:05 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| Quote: |
Crimson have you cross-referenced the IP to see if this was a different user? Or maybe it was just someone jumping from one site to another trying to force their beliefs on someone else. *shrug*
|
Yes, and there was no relation.
| Quote: |
Either way I find it amusing that they posted a very controversial subject for the first and only post then disappeared. And here we are debating it like the weak-minded humans that we are.
|
I think it makes (some of) us the opposite of "weak-minded". I thoroughly enjoy debating religion, the greater meaning of things, where we came from, where we go when we die. I also spend a lot of time talking about the higher powers theoretically possible in all humans starting with the easiest one we can attain which is taking control of your dreams (lucid dreaming). The truly weak minded are the ones who get the answers to the "how did we get here? what happens when we die?" questions and just believes the answers given to them all their lives without coming up with their own nonsense predictions and sensical ones, and just having fun with the whole thing.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jesus [message #218088 is a reply to message #215250] |
Fri, 08 September 2006 13:47 |
 |
xptek
Messages: 1410
Registered: August 2004
Location: USSA
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Everybody who walks the earth is destined to die at some point. It's a depressing thought, however it is nevertheless true. What happens then? Are we just obliterated or is there a life after this one? If there is eternal life, then the next life will be a lot longer than this one. If we win the genetic lottery here, we may live to be 100 years old. Most of us will live a shorter life than this. By comparison, the next life will last forever.
Bearing this in mind it is very important to consider how we live this life and to give some serious thought to the choices we make. Unless you subscribe to the notion that life is a random accident then you need to consider what you will say to your maker when you meet Him. The Bible says that we will all face judgement when we die. The Bible also says that all of us have done bad things in the eyes of God, we have all sinned. If we are to be held accountable for these things that we have done, then our eternal destination is going to be very unpleasant. We will not be able to tell God that we deserve to go into His heaven, because we don't deserve to go into His heaven.
God has made a way for us to avoid hell, which is where I deserve to go along with everyone else. He sent The Flying Spaghetti Monster Christ to earth to live the perfect life that we couldn't live, pay for our sins with His suffering on the cross and to purchase a place in heaven for us. The way to receive the gift of eternal life is to do the following:
1. Trust The Flying Spaghetti Monster to save you from your sins.
2. Accept Him as your Savior.
3. Make Him the Lord of your life (Giving Him control of your life).
4. Confess your sins to God (He knows them all anyway) and ask Him to forgive you of them.
These are not steps to be taken lightly. If you follow The Flying Spaghetti Monster, it can't help but change your life. It will also make the next life a lot more enjoyable.
cause = time
|
|
|
|
| Pages (9): [ 8 ] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Apr 28 00:01:59 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01462 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
