• @Grigoriy:

    @EmuGod:

    “An eye for an eye” in Jewish law means one must pay the equivalent sum of the eye to the person who one maimed. It is not physical payment but monetary compensation.

    How much is an eye worth?

    We do not know anymore. In ancient times they had ways of measuring how much people and parts of people were worth as slavery existed (though for Jews it was in the form of servitude to pay reparations for damages).


  • @Janus1:

    Its called staying on topic. As the topic of this thread is God, and religion, I am mentioning this on this thread. I am not mentioning other problems, though they may be more serious, because that would be off topic. If you want to discuss them, make another thread, and I will gladly discuss them there.

    grins ….
    well, you are about the first here who really pays attention to stay on topic then 🙂


  • well (puffs up chest) it is my thread, i feel a certain, <grasps for="" something="">thing for it.</grasps>


  • Im currently reading a very interesting book, titled “God?”. It is a debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Both provide some very good points, and argue them very well. Naturally, I think the atheist debater does a better job, but the christian debater does very well also. Personally, I found the Christian’s style to be much like Falk’s, though you may interpret for yourself if you choose to read it. When I finish, Im going to present some of the arguments on here for those of you who do not read it, and hopefully, we can get another debate going. (I will provide both sides, so as to be fair)


  • I believe that there is a God,and that He created everything that is. And for you Janus, the Big Bang didn’t create God, God created the Big Bang.

  • Moderator

    good man! the ranks our growing on the query


  • Weird…I was just looking back over some of this, and Janus actually contradicted himself! I guess I was wrong-he’s not that repetitive. 😛

    Also, this thread is getting rather confusing. Hopefully we can get

    Im currently reading a very interesting book, titled “God?”. It is a debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Both provide some very good points, and argue them very well. Naturally, I think the atheist debater does a better job, but the christian debater does very well also. Personally, I found the Christian’s style to be much like Falk’s, though you may interpret for yourself if you choose to read it. When I finish, Im going to present some of the arguments on here for those of you who do not read it, and hopefully, we can get another debate going. (I will provide both sides, so as to be fair)

    this going soon and make it even more so.


  • If even the slightest imperfections in the structure of the Atom existed, life would not exist. If Hydrogen didn’t bond so well with Oxygen to produce water, life would not exist. If the right combinations of atoms and molecules didn’t form together to create amino acids, life would not exist. Its not inconcievable to think that we’re not one huge accident.

    However, anyone who believes going to Church every Sunday, praying before going to bed, saying Grace, confessing, et al, has anything to do with a higher power, well they need to study their history.


  • Mr. Beans, you are wrong.

    GI, thats entirely possible. if i might ask, where? what did i say?

    Yanny, while some of what you said is applicable, im not prepared to accept that argument from you, you are a layman (sp?). however, that is part of the christian argument in the book (“God?”), so i will comment on it when i finish


  • @Janus1:

    theres a difference between prayer and religion. you can believe in a god, and pray to a god, but not practice a religion. as i was saying, private belief in god is fine, many people privately believe in worse things. this can include prayer. you can still pray, even if religion is abolished.

    This. First you say that there is no god, but then you say it’s fine to believe in god. I’m thinking that maybe your problem isn’t with god of any brand, it’s with religion. (probably you’ve said that and I missed it).

  • Moderator

    @Janus1:

    Mr. Beans, you are wrong.

    GI, thats entirely possible. if i might ask, where? what did i say?

    Yanny, while some of what you said is applicable, im not prepared to accept that argument from you, you are a layman (sp?). however, that is part of the christian argument in the book (“God?”), so i will comment on it when i finish

    no Janus you are wrong 😛
    yes you are repetitive…
    What does it matter if he is a layman! you don’t even believe in God what right :roll: do you think you have to say that? Why would you contradict yourself? A layman in my view of Christianity doesn’t mean anything… there is no seperiority in the church because even pastors are subject to someone…

    GG


  • GI, the mistake was mine, again, my difficulty in transferring my thoughts to words. to sum up my feelings:

    1. there is no god
    2. religion is a terrible thing
    3. if you choose to believe in god, it is your own perrogative (sp?)
    4. your belief should not be exercised publicly

    in my posts, i may have contradicted myself in various places, so that is my stance.

    GG:I never said i was not repetitive (did i?) because i certainly am. when i am (i think) the only one in this forum arguing my position, and everyone else uses similar arguments, its going to happen (similar in that many points are repeated by different posters, i try to address them each time)

    BUT

    It absolutely matters that he is a layman. he isnt arguing, in that post, a matter of faith or religion, but of science. read his post, he talks about variances in atoms, and amino acids. that is a discussion of science. i am not prepared to accept his opinion on that, unless i hear a source, because that is an empirical (well, mostly empirical) issue.

    if you are going to question my right to argue religion because i am an atheist, than you dont seem to understand the topic of this thread.


  • ok, im pissed now. i finished typing my first post on “God?”, and it was REALLY long. apparently i took to long to finish typing, because when i submit it, it said Invalid Session, and erased everything i had typed. so i wont be retyping it for a little while while i calm down.

  • Moderator

    I don’t think I implied to you not being able to argue religion…


  • Yanny, while some of what you said is applicable, im not prepared to accept that argument from you, you are a layman (sp?). however, that is part of the christian argument in the book (“God?”), so i will comment on it when i finish

    I really don’t give a damn about Christianity. You probably know much I hate the church. However, one does not need to believe in the fallacy of organized religion to believe in a higher power. Looking at the universe, I can’t concieve that, by luck, all the trillions of cosmic pieces came together to produce life. Its so mathmatically improbable, that the supernatural is simply the most reasonable explanation.

    If people just accepted this and stopped trying to believe in a book written by a Roman emperor, the world would be a much better place.


  • @Grigoriy:

    This. First you say that there is no god, but then you say it’s fine to believe in god. I’m thinking that maybe your problem isn’t with god of any brand, it’s with religion. (probably you’ve said that and I missed it).

    Well, even if there was no tooth fairy, i wouldn’t mind people not believing in her. No contradiction. Non-Existance doesn’t hinder Believe.

    @ the “scientific” argument:
    All the “trillions” of pieces follow the same laws. There has been some work out there AFAIR that covers how much which constant is allowed to change and what would be the changes in the universe.
    It is not statistics by the numbers, that is not a valid argument. You could claim though that all the physical constants, being as they are and allowing the existance of a stable universe which allows life to evolve is a sign of god. But even that claim is flawed:
    The above mentioned work on “different constants” had one main conclusion: There are very few stable configurations of the main constants (and remember, there are only very few main constants, many are inter-related, so you can express “the lot” by “a handful”). These stable configurations lead to a stable universe, and from there on “the rest has to follow”. Means, if the universe is stable, from that follows there exist stable atoms, molecules, then reproducing molecules etc., all the steps to life which you argued show sign of a divine being.
    They don’t. It’s called “anthropocentric argument”, btw.


  • For most people, they don’t see they pearly gates until their six feet under. So, Janus, if you need proof of God, why don’t you take action and find out….if you get what I am saying 😉


  • It seems to me that those who believe would be the ones most anxious to meet their maker.

    Perhaps you could go do some volunteer work in a nice, dangerous place. An eternity of bliss awaits you!

    =p

    I wont speak for Janus, but if i’m doomed to Hell, I don’t see a point in rushing things.

    😉


  • @Janus1:

    ok, im pissed now. i finished typing my first post on “God?”, and it was REALLY long. apparently i took to long to finish typing, because when i submit it, it said Invalid Session, and erased everything i had typed. so i wont be retyping it for a little while while i calm down.

    It’s okay Janus, I’d probably agree with your post anyways. 😉


  • I think the main problem i have with the concept of god is it is too arbitrary (i really hate arbitrary things when they are forced down our throats). Its very easy to explain something with god, or to believe in god to calm us, but why does that make it so? it doesnt. it doesnt mean there is no god of course, but since i have heard this argument from christians many times (the simplest explanation is the best), as an attempt to prove god exists, it just makes me wonder, is it really that simple? it is if you take it at face value. “God created everything. Oh, ok, problem solved.” but not really, because it really explains nothing. all it does is simplify these things into one question, the question of god, which people than believe in. my question is this, if there is a God, whose God is it? certainly not the christian god (there are too many inconsistencies), but whose?or maybe its one we dont worship. and that just opens a whole nother can of worms. frankly, i think atheism is far simpler, and if we follow the logic many christians seem to use (simplest explanation is the best), then atheism is the best explanation.


  • In that case, how about the Norse gods? They always were my favorite, ahead of the Greek/Roman then the Egyptian gods. (any others, please bring to my attention)


  • yea. the cool thing with them was not only could they die, but they were doomed in the end, and they knew it. they kick the greek gods ass, though in a fight, theyd lose, since they can die.


  • @Janus1:

    yea. the cool thing with them was not only could they die, but they were doomed in the end, and they knew it. they kick the greek gods a**, though in a fight, theyd lose, since they can die.

    I don’t think so, because their whole thing was that they were destined to die in Ragnarok, so unless the Greek gods were part of Ragnarok, I think the Norse gods would still win.


  • norse gods could be killed too though. one of the Valhalla gods (i dont remember which right now) was killed by the snow giants (ice giants?)


  • @Janus1:

    norse gods could be killed too though. one of the Valhalla gods (i dont remember which right now) was killed by the snow giants (ice giants?)

    They were all “Valhalla” gods, that’s just the place where warriors went when they died. I don’t remember snow giants killing of any of them, except maybe at Ragnarok.

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 30
  • 3
  • 3
  • 33
  • 2
  • 28
  • 45
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

15.4k
Users

36.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts