The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: SamMax97 on April 03, 2017, 04:07:50 PM
-
I was amazed. I was never thinking of Earth being flat. I was never thinking of an existing God. I never thought that we all do have a purpose on this planet... but one night it hit me. I got struck by the willingness to find out more about life and more about everything. I wasn't going to accept the idea that after my death.. i just shall not exist anymore. I searched all religions and whatever i was coming across, would be in conflict with the science which I have learnt in school. I came across those verses in the Bible : 1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
and those verses in the Quran : Qur'an 15:19: And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.
Qur'an 20:53: He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels); and has sent down water from the sky." With it have We produced diverse pairs of plants each separate from the others.
Qur'an 43:10: (Yea, the same that) has made for you the earth (like a carpet) spread out, and has made for you roads (and channels) therein, in order that ye may find guidance (on the way)
Qur'an 50:7: And the earth- We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and produced therein every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs)-
Qur'an 51:48: And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!
Qur'an 71:19: And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out),
Qur'an 78:6: Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,
Qur'an 79:30: Literal: And the earth/Planet Earth after that He blew and stretched/spread it.
Qur'an 88:20: and at the Earth, how it is spread out?
Qur'an 91:6: By the Earth and its (wide) expanse
Qur'an 2:22: Who has made the earth your couch, and the heavens your canopy; and sent down rain from the heavens; and brought forth therewith Fruits for your sustenance; then set not up rivals unto Allah when ye know (the truth).
Qur'an 18:86: Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
Qur'an 18:47: One Day We shall remove the mountains, and thou wilt see the earth as a level stretch, and We shall gather them, all together, nor shall We leave out any one of them.
Qur'an 2:144: We have seen the turning of thy face to heaven (for guidance, O Muhammad). And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer) toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship, and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may be, turn your faces (when ye pray) toward it. Lo! Those who have received the Scripture know that (this revelation) is the Truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.
Qur'an 55:17: (He is) Lord of the two Easts and Lord of the two Wests
Which were against the Globe Earth... And realized that all verses of those religious books make a lot more sense when you think about Earth as being flat... not Globe... And thought to myself... why would they hide this... why would the 1% who control the governments... hide the truth. I made the connection that by hiding God, they indeed would remain in power... they do have to make us feel worthless and like a grain of sand in a universal desert... by doing so... we don't need to seek any truth (the existence of a Creator) because.. if everyone has a God... The government wouldn't work the same as now... Everything would go down for them. Nevertheless that is another topic not to go through now.
Where I want to get to is the question whether "flat-earth automatically calls for believing in God as the creator or not?."
-
No, it does not.
-
For me, it makes more sense. If only for the fact that flat earth puts you back at the center of creation, while "round" earth theory posits you on an insignificant speck in an inexplicably vast universe.
-
For me, it makes more sense. If only for the fact that flat earth puts you back at the center of creation, while "round" earth theory posits you on an insignificant speck in an inexplicably vast universe.
Ok, I'll bite.
If the earth is the center of creation, what is the point of us being here exactly?
-
For me, it makes more sense. If only for the fact that flat earth puts you back at the center of creation, while "round" earth theory posits you on an insignificant speck in an inexplicably vast universe.
Mankind always likes to put himself in the center of everything. How is that religious? That is just human nature. Who doesn't try and do that? Isn't that the origin of sin?
I think a more divine understanding is that we revolve around something greater than ourselves. That centrality of God represents the light of life and we reflect it.
-
Those passages do not have anything to do with the shape of the Earth. They are metaphorical, representing that the Earth, at least at that time, was seen as a huge, immovable, and solid object.
-
For me, it makes more sense. If only for the fact that flat earth puts you back at the center of creation, while "round" earth theory posits you on an insignificant speck in an inexplicably vast universe.
Mankind always likes to put himself in the center of everything. How is that religious? That is just human nature. Who doesn't try and do that? Isn't that the origin of sin?
I think a more divine understanding is that we revolve around something greater than ourselves. That centrality of God represents the light of life and we reflect it.
Or religion is ancient man’s attempt to make sense of a universe, science has gradually taken up the slack, so we no longer believe a god rides through the sky to make thunder or the vault of the heavens is a dead giants skull, but people still cling to it to stop themselves (TTIOH rightly), feeling insignificant.
As Christopher Hitchens has said “If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world”
-
For me, it makes more sense. If only for the fact that flat earth puts you back at the center of creation, while "round" earth theory posits you on an insignificant speck in an inexplicably vast universe.
Ok, I'll bite.
If the earth is the center of creation, what is the point of us being here exactly?
Good question. Physical existence could be some kind of filter you must pass through to refine your energies to be more in tune with the creator.
If you view the creator as a "source" or "singularity" that your soul or spirit, or whatever you want to call it, seeks to exists in harmony with- it would make sense to have to resolve any discord before you would be able to reconnect with it.
We know everything that exists is a frequency. We know that there is so much about the electromagnetic spectrum we don't know or understand. In my mind, it is more realistic to me that existence is layered into many fabrics, with multiple dimensions existing simultaneous as one. I don't think of God as someone in the clouds, or somewhere in outer space. It is more likely to me that if there are alien beings (ufos, angels, demons etc) they exist in a different spectrum, rather than on a separate, absurdly distant speck of dust. Would it take more energy to slip into a different frequency, or to traverse the entire universe?
For the record, I don't feel insignificant either way. If the earth is round, flat, the center of the universe, or just a speck in an impossibly vast universe. I still believe in a divine energy that animates us, and differentiates us from an identical conglomeration of inanimate molecules.
I think a more divine understanding is that we revolve around something greater than ourselves. That centrality of God represents the light of life and we reflect it.
I agree. But that isn't the mainstream thought process. That dictates that our existence is a mere coincidence, as statistically impossible as it would be, and there is no real explanation for the sudden appearance of life and the universe.
-
For me, it makes more sense. If only for the fact that flat earth puts you back at the center of creation, while "round" earth theory posits you on an insignificant speck in an inexplicably vast universe.
Ok, I'll bite.
If the earth is the center of creation, what is the point of us being here exactly?
Good question. Physical existence could be some kind of filter you must pass through to refine your energies to be more in tune with the creator.
If you view the creator as a "source" or "singularity" that your soul or spirit, or whatever you want to call it, seeks to exists in harmony with- it would make sense to have to resolve any discord before you would be able to reconnect with it.
We know everything that exists is a frequency. We know that there is so much about the electromagnetic spectrum we don't know or understand. In my mind, it is more realistic to me that existence is layered into many fabrics, with multiple dimensions existing simultaneous as one. I don't think of God as someone in the clouds, or somewhere in outer space. It is more likely to me that if there are alien beings (ufos, angels, demons etc) they exist in a different spectrum, rather than on a separate, absurdly distant speck of dust. Would it take more energy to slip into a different frequency, or to traverse the entire universe?
For the record, I don't feel insignificant either way. If the earth is round, flat, the center of the universe, or just a speck in an impossibly vast universe. I still believe in a divine energy that animates us, and differentiates us from an identical conglomeration of inanimate molecules.
I think a more divine understanding is that we revolve around something greater than ourselves. That centrality of God represents the light of life and we reflect it.
I agree. But that isn't the mainstream thought process. That dictates that our existence is a mere coincidence, as statistically impossible as it would be, and there is no real explanation for the sudden appearance of life and the universe.
So if I understand you correctly, if there is a point with our existence, our existence only matter if we assume there is a God or otherwise believe in something divine?
Without saying life has no significance (we're communicating right now, you and I, that's significant), the thought that there's absolutely no reason we exist, but that we're merely the result of a series of chemical coincidences, and that in our gigantic expanding universe is the possibility that life emerged and is thriving in one form or another on other celestial bodies by the thousands, or millions, is far fetched?
Because if I don't believe in a God or anything divine, but submit to science and the discoveries we continuously make about our universe, that these results aren't a hoax, that the earth is in fact a globe, there's a high probability this is the case. To reiterate over a previous point, I hope we've made mistakes about what gravity is. The theory is not perfect, in the sense that we don't know what causes the attraction other than mass. A discovery in that area that perfectly explains what gravity is even though it requires that we change any explanation about gravity we have as of now.. Well, I hope it will happen.
It doesn't change the shape of the earth though. My question is merely philosophical.
-
in our gigantic expanding universe is the possibility that life emerged and is thriving in one form or another on other celestial bodies by the thousands, or millions, is far fetched?
Because if I don't believe in a God or anything divine, but submit to science and the discoveries we continuously make about our universe, that these results aren't a hoax, that the earth is in fact a globe, there's a high probability this is the case.
This seems like a bold assertion to me. Can you show the math that leads to this conclusion?
-
Well, in this book there's a reply to that question as well :
1. Did you then think that We created you in vain, and that you would not be returned to us?
The Holy Quran 23:115
2. And I created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone).
The Holy Quran 51:56
The purpose of our life is the worship our Creator in the many ways there are to worship Him (prayer, helping others, seeking knowledge, etc.).
3. …Who has created life and death so that He may try you which of you are best in deeds…
The Holy Quran 67:2
Who will do the best works for the sake of Him?
4. And We have not created the heaven and earth and what is between them in vain. That is the opinion of those who disbelieve. And woe to such disbelievers, because of the Fire. Shall we treat those who believe and do good deeds as those who spread corruption on the earth? Or shall we treat the pious as sinners?
The Holy Quran 38:27-8
The believers will not face the same afterlife as the corrupters. The pious will not be treated the same as sinners.
5. And among the people there is he who sells himself for the pleasure of Allah, and Allah is kind to His worshippers.
The Holy Quran 2:207
The pleasure of Allah should be our goal.
6. There has come to you from God a light and a luminous Book, through which God, by His grace, guides all who seek His good pleasure on the path of peace, and brings them out of the depths of darkness into light and guides them unto a Straight Path.
-
I'm not asking what's the purpose of God's existence would be (being worshipped). If earth is put here on purpose, and there is a creator, what is our purpose exactly?
-
Well our purpose in life is not to be deceived by those in power to deceive us and hide God from us. It is a battle of the unseen, a spiritual one... and the ultimate goal is for us to realise there is a God and once we do, to worship Him until death. And then be happy by passing this test... by overcoming our desires and this material world.
-
Well our purpose in life is not to be deceived by those in power to deceive us and hide God from us. It is a battle of the unseen, a spiritual one... and the ultimate goal is for us to realise there is a God and once we do, to worship Him until death. And then be happy by passing this test... by overcoming our desires and this material world.
That makes no sense. If we're created only to worship our creator, our creator is a narcissistic prick. Which of the ~4200 dieties are we talking about here?
Yeah, I'll go with the version that actually makes sense, that there's no real purpose of us being here, and that it's merely a coincidence we came to existence.
-
He's not.. If you do worship Him this life, then you will attain an eternal life in heaven.. rather than hell. He created us to see who's the best in deeds. And the best ones have the chance to be there... I know it sounds like a fairy tale due to the society we were born in and this age... but if you were to go few hundred years back.. If you were not worshipping God.. you would still worship a stick stone or cow.. or in extreme cases believe that you yourself are God as some other people back then used to.
-
He's not.. If you do worship Him this life, then you will attain an eternal life in heaven.. rather than hell. He created us to see who's the best in deeds. And the best ones have the chance to be there... I know it sounds like a fairy tale due to the society we were born in and this age... but if you were to go few hundred years back.. If you were not worshipping God.. you would still worship a stick stone or cow.. or in extreme cases believe that you yourself are God as some other people back then used to.
And the purpose of eternal life in heaven would be?
This is about religion and flat earth, it's not only about religion. Why create an earth as a test for people to earn their right to live forever in heaven? And what does all that have to do with the shape of the earth? What's the purpose?
The more you think of it, the less the existence of a creator makes sense. I'm in no way religious and I never will be, just for the record.
-
If earth is put here on purpose, and there is a creator, what is our purpose exactly?
Why do you think this would be known, or even knowable?
-
So why should we bother?
-
So why should we bother?
Personally, I don't think we should. But, in the very unlikely event that there is a deity, I don't think he'd be telling us what his plan is.
-
I am a religious man, though certainly not to the extreme that I was at 24, when I entered a monastery to be a monk and priest. I am LCMS Lutheran now, which admittedly is Confessional Lutheran and quite conservative. Richard Dawkins is, to put it mildly, a 'tard. I have read his crap, and that is precisely what it is, is crap. But I do know reasonably intelligent atheists. He just isn't one of them.
But no, believing in the flat earth (I don't) does NOT require a belief in a Divinity. Granted, men such as Rowbotham and Gleason DID believe, and used the Bible to help make their case, just as Muslims do with the Qur'an. But there are plenty (in fact, probably a bit of a majority) both here and at the OTHER Flat Earth site that are atheistic and still believe in Flat Earth.
-
He's not.. If you do worship Him this life, then you will attain an eternal life in heaven.. rather than hell. He created us to see who's the best in deeds. And the best ones have the chance to be there... I know it sounds like a fairy tale due to the society we were born in and this age...
So having the zombified corpse of a murdered man who claimed he was the son of a sky angel, tell us we can remove a sin (that was planted by a woman made from a rib, after eating a magic apple because an evil snake told her too, before we were born), by getting on our knees and telepathically communicating our acceptance of him, whilst symbolically consuming his flesh and blood, then we can go to his place forever as long as we continue to tell him he is great.
If we think this is a tad megalomaniacal, or even unbelievable, and therefore we don’t tell him he is great, he will roast and torture us forever, but he loves us.
Fairytale? And you tell this to your kids?
-
He's not.. If you do worship Him this life, then you will attain an eternal life in heaven.. rather than hell. He created us to see who's the best in deeds. And the best ones have the chance to be there... I know it sounds like a fairy tale due to the society we were born in and this age...
So having the zombified corpse of a murdered man who claimed he was the son of a sky angel,
First off, anybody who doesn't know the difference between the Creator and part of the Creation (Angels) is clearly not very bright. 2nd, Resurrection v. Zombification are radically different things. Not knowing the difference ALSO implies a lack of brains.
tell us we can remove a sin (that was planted by a woman made from a rib, after eating a magic apple because an evil snake told her too, before we were born), by getting on our knees and telepathically communicating our acceptance of him, whilst symbolically consuming his flesh and blood, then we can go to his place forever as long as we continue to tell him he is great.
The Bible never specifies what the fruit was. Your assumption that it was an apple is, again, an ASSumption. The snake itself was representative of the Devil. Your lack of ability to note this simple fact further casts doubt on your intellect.
If we think this is a tad megalomaniacal, or even unbelievable, and therefore we don’t tell him he is great, he will roast and torture us forever, but he loves us.
Fairytale? And you tell this to your kids?
The fact that someone with your poor level of brains is even allowed to post here speaks VOLUMES for the immense tolerance of this site for third graders. My wife's students could do a better job, and many of them are Special Ed.
My objection is not your lack of belief. In fact, I am totally fine with that. I have known plenty of intelligent (and even a few brilliant) atheists. But you are clearly not one of them. Before opening your pie-hole again, it might serve you well to know what you are talking about. It is one thing to be THOUGHT to be a fool. It is quite another to open one's yap, and by doing so, remove all possible doubt on the matter.
-
He's not.. If you do worship Him this life, then you will attain an eternal life in heaven.. rather than hell. He created us to see who's the best in deeds. And the best ones have the chance to be there... I know it sounds like a fairy tale due to the society we were born in and this age...
So having the zombified corpse of a murdered man who claimed he was the son of a sky angel,
First off, anybody who doesn't know the difference between the Creator and part of the Creation (Angels) is clearly not very bright. 2nd, Resurrection v. Zombification are radically different things. Not knowing the difference ALSO implies a lack of brains.
tell us we can remove a sin (that was planted by a woman made from a rib, after eating a magic apple because an evil snake told her too, before we were born), by getting on our knees and telepathically communicating our acceptance of him, whilst symbolically consuming his flesh and blood, then we can go to his place forever as long as we continue to tell him he is great.
The Bible never specifies what the fruit was. Your assumption that it was an apple is, again, an ASSumption. The snake itself was representative of the Devil. Your lack of ability to note this simple fact further casts doubt on your intellect.
If we think this is a tad megalomaniacal, or even unbelievable, and therefore we don’t tell him he is great, he will roast and torture us forever, but he loves us.
Fairytale? And you tell this to your kids?
The fact that someone with your poor level of brains is even allowed to post here speaks VOLUMES for the immense tolerance of this site for third graders. My wife's students could do a better job, and many of them are Special Ed.
My objection is not your lack of belief. In fact, I am totally fine with that. I have known plenty of intelligent (and even a few brilliant) atheists. But you are clearly not one of them. Before opening your pie-hole again, it might serve you well to know what you are talking about. It is one thing to be THOUGHT to be a fool. It is quite another to open one's yap, and by doing so, remove all possible doubt on the matter.
Hey this isn't exactly turning the other cheek here lol... Ofcourse (s)he said some things that would obviously be inflammatory to someone who considered priesthood at some point in his life, but you're not really showing her the shining example a Christian should/would.
And as for andruszkow, the purpose certainly isn't knowable, even though many people from many walks of life and religions will tell you they do know. I can only tell you what my inclination and what helps me to make sense of what I've gleaned.
To me, what the bible and other holy texts reaffirm is that the Creator's is infinite merciful... meaning "He" won't, or possibly can't (because each soul or spirit is a part of "Himself") destroy you for being a dick.
I'm inclined to believe in reincarnation in some form, and life as we know it being a sort of filtering/refining process. I am inclined to believe that physical, finite manifestation is uniquely suited to perform this task.
Why the original discord? That's anyone's guess. The "fall" of man has been speculated on since we first postulated that this existence wasn't the only existence, or the highest form of existence.
-
Hey this isn't exactly turning the other cheek here lol... Ofcourse (s)he said some things that would obviously be inflammatory to someone who considered priesthood at some point in his life, but you're not really showing her the shining example a Christian should/would.
And as for andruszkow, the purpose certainly isn't knowable, even though many people from many walks of life and religions will tell you they do know. I can only tell you what my inclination and what helps me to make sense of what I've gleaned.
To me, what the bible and other holy texts reaffirm is that the Creator's is infinite merciful... meaning "He" won't, or possibly can't (because each soul or spirit is a part of "Himself") destroy you for being a dick.
I'm inclined to believe in reincarnation in some form, and life as we know it being a sort of filtering/refining process. I am inclined to believe that physical, finite manifestation is uniquely suited to perform this task.
Why the original discord? That's anyone's guess. The "fall" of man has been speculated on since we first postulated that this existence wasn't the only existence, or the highest form of existence.
Well, I have NEVER suffered a fool gladly. As far as Hell goes, I do believe in it. I also tend to believe it's for the worst of the worst. I know that LCMS Lutheran practice is that one MUST be a Christian to merit the Kingdom. My own answer, and one I have heard from many clergy, is that we simply don't know, and its best to be kind to all, while at the same time doing our best to teach the Word of God.
On a purely personal level, I have studied virtually EVERY religion of significance in the world today, from Roman Catholicism to Anglicanism, to Judaism, to Islam, to both theistic and non-theistic Buddhism, to monotheistic Hinduism, to Mormonism, to Shintoism. And of course Lutheranism. The ONLY one I really have serious issues with is Islam, simply because of their tendency to enjoy blowing crap up.
So, ultimately, although I would LIKE it if the world were Christian (and better yet, Lutheran), and although I will work toward that, I see no need to be nasty to others about it. But, get nasty with me, and yes, I shall gladly chew you apart and enjoy every minute of it.
-
So, ultimately, although I would LIKE it if the world were Christian (and better yet, Lutheran), and although I will work toward that, I see no need to be nasty to others about it. But, get nasty with me, and yes, I shall gladly chew you apart and enjoy every minute of it.
Do you really think it's appropriate to have a one size fits all homogenized religion? Like you said, most of them boil down to don't be a d'bag... I was always troubled by the proposition that only people who lived in the brief period of history that could have heard about Christ have a chance at being in Heaven. Especially when you're talking about an omnipresent and omnipotent God that obviously isn't bound by time it makes no sense to open Heaven to people that lived from X-Z years on Earth. The judgement day being a literal day in the future also falls apart in light of that.
Where does God exist, to you?
-
So, ultimately, although I would LIKE it if the world were Christian (and better yet, Lutheran), and although I will work toward that, I see no need to be nasty to others about it. But, get nasty with me, and yes, I shall gladly chew you apart and enjoy every minute of it.
Do you really think it's appropriate to have a one size fits all homogenized religion? Like you said, most of them boil down to don't be a d'bag... I was always troubled by the proposition that only people who lived in the brief period of history that could have heard about Christ have a chance at being in Heaven. Especially when you're talking about an omnipresent and omnipotent God that obviously isn't bound by time it makes no sense to open Heaven to people that lived from X-Z years on Earth. The judgement day being a literal day in the future also falls apart in light of that.
Where does God exist, to you?
God exists outside of time and space. As for who can be saved and who cannot be, there is clearly something to be said for the Baptism of Desire. This is a concept such that a person who has never had the opportunity to hear of Christ, but would have respnded positively if he had, has every opportunity to attain the Kingdom, through Christ's mercy. Now this is no works based salvation, lest any man should boast, but rather is a mercy offered to sinful and flawed man by an ever gentle Christ.
-
Well that certainly touched a nerve Posi', apart from my obvious lack of grey matter that you so christianly pointed out I cite a laissez faire Church of England up bringing for my gaps in knowledge (no doubt you'll be telling me next that Easter isn't about the baby Jesus laying an egg for the chocolate bunny), but all that aside, bottom line is I get eternity in torment for not believing your myths, you are welcome to your hell and your tyrannical deity, you deserve each other.
-
Well that certainly touched a nerve Posi', apart from my obvious lack of grey matter that you so christianly pointed out I cite a laissez faire Church of England up bringing for my gaps in knowledge (no doubt you'll be telling me next that Easter isn't about the baby Jesus laying an egg for the chocolate bunny), but all that aside, bottom line is I get eternity in torment for not believing your myths, you are welcome to your hell and your tyrannical deity, you deserve each other.
Well, I was raised part Roman and part Anglican myself. Since the C of E produced the Authorised Version (also called the King James Version) of the Bible, and since that text is easy to get and read for yourself, you really can only blame the Church so far. Like I said, I do not presume to know your final destination in the eternal realms. And no, you did not hit a nerve, beyond the one that just doesn't tolerate fools well. You are entitled to believe what you like. But at least know what you do NOT believe if you are going to criticise it. If you had made valid criticisms of Christian beliefs, or simply accurately stated those beliefs and then indicated your lack of acceptance of same, I would have been fine with that. But instead you made yourself look stupid. Not wise.
-
You’re kind of missing the point here Posi, so despite your original hostility I will explain a bit.
All the “was it an apple or a pomegranate” zombie or resurrection, snake or the devil? I don’t care, it was a pastiche, to show in some measure the ridiculousness of the message pedalled, and I’m not blaming the reverend Ireland for the rubbish job he did or even my tardiness as a student, the message itself is flawed.
These are prehistoric legends, your particular one born amongst warring desert tribes, thousands of years, of gibberish, attempting to explain a world they didn’t understand, grown in ignorance, passed down and distorted to fit the prejudices and social pressures they were filtered through. We don’t need them, if it wasn’t for the horror story element of what happens to those who don’t conform (Hell), and the wishful thinkers who want to carry on living and/or meet their loved ones again after death (Heaven), they would have faded away beneath the surgical gaze of science long ago.
Hopefully this will still happen, even in America probably the most backward of modern countries, atheism is on the rise, forward with the enlightenment.
-
You’re kind of missing the point here Posi, so despite your original hostility I will explain a bit.
All the “was it an apple or a pomegranate” zombie or resurrection, snake or the devil? I don’t care, it was a pastiche, to show in some measure the ridiculousness of the message pedalled, and I’m not blaming the reverend Ireland for the rubbish job he did or even my tardiness as a student, the message itself is flawed.
And now I get to be subjected to the same, tired argument,, no more true today than it ever was, of the "prehistoric legend" crap.
These are prehistoric legends, your particular one born amongst warring desert tribes, thousands of years, of gibberish, attempting to explain a world they didn’t understand, grown in ignorance, passed down and distorted to fit the prejudices and social pressures they were filtered through. We don’t need them, if it wasn’t for the horror story element of what happens to those who don’t conform (Hell), and the wishful thinkers who want to carry on living and/or meet their loved ones again after death (Heaven), they would have faded away beneath the surgical gaze of science long ago.
Hopefully this will still happen, even in America probably the most backward of modern countries, atheism is on the rise, forward with the enlightenment.
For America being so backward, you should all be thanking us, as without us you all in Europe would be speaking German by now. And no, Atheism is no more on the rise here than it is elsewhere (except in the cesspool that is modern day Western Europe, where they have been STUPID enough to allow open immigration). Obozo the Muslim traitor did as well, but now, with a real President in office, hopefully that will end.
As to the question of the "prehistoric legends", the question of human origins is not really an issue to worry about much. The question is the origin of everything, and anyone who claims that "$h!t just got here on its own" is basically admitting how dim they are. Sorry, but any common person knows that stuff doesn't just HAPPEN. It requires an outside force to make it happen. A thing at rest does not start moving of its own accord. And things don't self-create, either. I DO understand that you are not that bright, but do TRY to come up with better arguments than that!
-
Atheism will never be more viable that agnosticism. You can't prove the non-existence of Creator. Especially if you want to try to use Science to explain how we became man from a single cell (you cannot).
The best you can do is admit that you just don't know. The science doesn't support atheism enough for it to be mainstream. Until you can use the scientific method to accurately explain our existence then science can never replace God. Until then, there are too many logical leaps that we have to take to truly believe we are just a cosmic accident.
By the way, I don't want to drag this into the never ending shit show of the Creation/Evolution thread from last year. My only point here is that the only logical step after Creationism is Agnosticism.
-
THETRUTHISONHERE, I am inclined to agree with you. Now, on a purely PERSONAL level, I do believe the State should be separate from the Church. And to me, that would mean the Church WOULD be subject to taxation (and By "Church" I refer to ANY religious group). I also think that private schools run by Churches up through the 12th Grade should be forbidden, and all young people should be educated in State Schools. If they want religious education, go to Sunday School. As far as universities go, that is a different matter, of course.
I think the Gregorian Calendar should ALSO be eliminated in favour of a secular one, that would satisfy the needs of the State. The French Republican Calendar seems best for this. If someone needed a religious day off from work, that should be allowed as long as it does not impact overall workload.
I again, am quite a religious man, although not to the point that I once was. But I think, especially in America, with its multiplicity of religions, no one religion should be given preference over another. And Islam should be forbidden outright as a direct threat to the State.
ALL religions should be obligated to register with the State, in order to guarantee that they are obeying the tax laws, and the like, and not harming their followers. By harm, I refer to physical or emotional abuse.
I realise these views would make me unpopular with many Americans, but it's just how I feel about things.
-
And things don't self-create, either. I DO understand that you are not that bright, but do TRY to come up with better arguments than that!
What created God?
-
And things don't self-create, either. I DO understand that you are not that bright, but do TRY to come up with better arguments than that!
What created God?
ROUNDY, come on, you can do better than that! Even Plato spoke of the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover. Ultimately, you come back to something that has ALWAYS itself existed. Now scientists themselves know that the Universe itself had a beginning. So beyond that you have to posit Something Else.
-
You are getting all angry again Posi.
A few points, TTIOH is right about the arguments we had before they are fun but largely end in insults and anger (see above). Science doesn't support Atheism, what it does/has done over the years is explain the stuff religions were there to do in the first place, the sun isn't carried across the world in a chariot and shoved through the underworld at night by a beetle (or was that the moon? Small matter), astronomy taking over from astrology etc. gradually it has eroded the need for myths with facts.
On your grasp of history. I take it you mean the second world war, no disrespect to the Americans who died in Europe, I have been to the American cemetery overlooking Omaha beach and a lot of brave men died there, but you didn't win the war, on balance it was the Russians with far greater loses and hardship (than both our nations combined) who bled the Nazi's war machine dry.
On loss of religion the USA is in the top 10 for notable decline, in at number 8 with a drop of 13% since 2005.
On cesspool Europe? I have traveled it extensively and it's a vibrant open wonderful place, try something other than Fox news.
As for “And things don't self-create, either. “, what Roundy said.
-
You are getting all angry again Posi.
A few points, TTIOH is right about the arguments we had before they are fun but largely end in insults and anger (see above). Science doesn't support Atheism, what it does/has done over the years is explain the stuff religions were there to do in the first place, the sun isn't carried across the world in a chariot and shoved through the underworld at night by a beetle (or was that the moon? Small matter), astronomy taking over from astrology etc. gradually it has eroded the need for myths with facts.
On your grasp of history. I take it you mean the second world war, no disrespect to the Americans who died in Europe, I have been to the American cemetery overlooking Omaha beach and a lot of brave men died there, but you didn't win the war, on balance it was the Russians with far greater loses and hardship (than both our nations combined) who bled the Nazi's war machine dry.
I don't dispute the Soviet role in WWII, but they still could not have done it without us, nor us without them.
On loss of religion the USA is in the top 10 for notable decline, in at number 8 with a drop of 13% since 2005.
And interestingly enough, you will find that it is the liberal mainline Churches that are losing membership. The conservative ones are growing.
On cesspool Europe? I have traveled it extensively and it's a vibrant open wonderful place, try something other than Fox news.
That so-called vibrant place is infested with Muslims, such that there are whole parts of cities where even the police do not go. Even our somewhat left of center CNN admits that. Sweden is now 11% Muslim, and is basically in the process of committing national-cultural suicide. But, right wing movements are on the rise, which I see as a good thing, as long as they can be controlled.
Of course, the Leftist sacks of $h!t will do what they can to prevent that. Like mischaracterising Marine le Pen when she says that the French Government had nothing to do with the round-up of Jews. What she meant, and she stated this, was that the Republic was in England, and the Vichy Government was NOT the legitimate government of France. But try to get the Left to admit that!
As for “And things don't self-create, either. “, what Roundy said.
Already answered.
And like I said, I am not angry. I just don't tolerate a fool well. And that is what you appear to be.
-
You are getting all angry again Posi.
A few points, TTIOH is right about the arguments we had before they are fun but largely end in insults and anger (see above). Science doesn't support Atheism, what it does/has done over the years is explain the stuff religions were there to do in the first place, the sun isn't carried across the world in a chariot and shoved through the underworld at night by a beetle (or was that the moon? Small matter), astronomy taking over from astrology etc. gradually it has eroded the need for myths with facts.
On your grasp of history. I take it you mean the second world war, no disrespect to the Americans who died in Europe, I have been to the American cemetery overlooking Omaha beach and a lot of brave men died there, but you didn't win the war, on balance it was the Russians with far greater loses and hardship (than both our nations combined) who bled the Nazi's war machine dry.
I don't dispute the Soviet role in WWII, but they still could not have done it without us, nor us without them.
On loss of religion the USA is in the top 10 for notable decline, in at number 8 with a drop of 13% since 2005.
And interestingly enough, you will find that it is the liberal mainline Churches that are losing membership. The conservative ones are growing.
On cesspool Europe? I have traveled it extensively and it's a vibrant open wonderful place, try something other than Fox news.
That so-called vibrant place is infested with Muslims, such that there are whole parts of cities where even the police do not go. Even our somewhat left of center CNN admits that. Sweden is now 11% Muslim, and is basically in the process of committing national-cultural suicide. But, right wing movements are on the rise, which I see as a good thing, as long as they can be controlled.
Of course, the Leftist sacks of $h!t will do what they can to prevent that. Like mischaracterising Marine le Pen when she says that the French Government had nothing to do with the round-up of Jews. What she meant, and she stated this, was that the Republic was in England, and the Vichy Government was NOT the legitimate government of France. But try to get the Left to admit that!
As for “And things don't self-create, either. “, what Roundy said.
Already answered.
And like I said, I am not angry. I just don't tolerate a fool well. And that is what you appear to be.
Your wording suggests that Muslims are the main issue. If I had to go your route, as I see it, Europe is infested with religion. Not just Islam. However, apart from Islam growing (because of fugitives and lousy integration efforts), the nations of Europe are fairly secular in general.
Your comment about Sweden just doesn't fly. This is a typical remark from people subscribing to facts based on news only (in particular in America). I'm from Scandinavia myself. Swedens population might consist of a 11% Muslim minority. This doesn't make sweden 11% Muslim.
But let's play that game though. How are crime rates in America, across the board, compared to highly secular countries like Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway for instance?
-
In fact, never mind about that. I really don't care about your views on that, you can rely on Fox news as much as you want and stay ignorant. It doesn't really change anything regarding religion and flat earth.
-
He's not even bothered to check his facts on that, just gone into the same old right wing frenzy, according to the Swedes, Muslims account for 1.5% (http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/), but hey! What do they know.
I think the phrase "conservative" in respect to those American churches is a bit of a misnomer, raving end-of-times, poorly educated bampots isn't part of my dictionaries definition of the word, but then again I'm not that smart.
-
Well, I won't deny, some of the churches in question make me quite uncomfortable as well. I am merely pointing out that the loss in religiosity in this country is predominantly from the liberal wing.
The fact that the Bishop in charge of the Seaman's Church in Sweden actually recommended that crosses be removed from it and other churches, and that Muslim prayer rooms be opened in them in order to accommodate your Muslim guests should be an indicator that all is NOT well in the Kingdom. Granted, the suggestion was not acted upon, but the fact that someone was retarded enough to MAKE it...
The fact that the Government only lists a 1.5% of Muslims simply indicates under-reporting. Having read the data myself, it simply states that a person is counted as a religious Muslim if they say they are. If they neglect to answer the question... I have Swedish friends myself. And no, I don't actually watch ANY TV, let alone Fox News. I consider the television to be a bane of our society, and so only really own one for my wife's sake. I read my news and get it on the radio.
The reason crime rates are higher here is simple. We have 326 million people to control. There are nowhere near that many in Sweden, or Finland, or England, or what-have-you. Stupid question.
Notice, even the website admits there are places where the police struggle to do their duty. A government will rarely admit the full truth of a situation like that. So, ask yourself, how much worse is it than they are letting on?
-
Well, I won't deny, some of the churches in question make me quite uncomfortable as well. I am merely pointing out that the loss in religiosity in this country is predominantly from the liberal wing.
The fact that the Bishop in charge of the Seaman's Church in Sweden actually recommended that crosses be removed from it and other churches, and that Muslim prayer rooms be opened in them in order to accommodate your Muslim guests should be an indicator that all is NOT well in the Kingdom. Granted, the suggestion was not acted upon, but the fact that someone was retarded enough to MAKE it...
The fact that the Government only lists a 1.5% of Muslims simply indicates under-reporting. Having read the data myself, it simply states that a person is counted as a religious Muslim if they say they are. If they neglect to answer the question... I have Swedish friends myself. And no, I don't actually watch ANY TV, let alone Fox News. I consider the television to be a bane of our society, and so only really own one for my wife's sake. I read my news and get it on the radio.
The reason crime rates are higher here is simple. We have 326 million people to control. There are nowhere near that many in Sweden, or Finland, or England, or what-have-you. Stupid question.
Notice, even the website admits there are places where the police struggle to do their duty. A government will rarely admit the full truth of a situation like that. So, ask yourself, how much worse is it than they are letting on?
That argument is simply bullshit. So do it on a per-capita basis.
Studies shows that the rates of murder, rape, corruption, state of health care, happiness, education etc are much worse in religious countries and states than in secular. In the 90s, a study even revealed that only 0.2% of the prison population in the US are atheist (agnostic). There's a tendency that states (US) with high murder rates are highly religious, while states with the lowest murder rates are among the least religious.
"The fact that the Government only lists a 1.5% of Muslims simply indicates under-reporting"
Inventing stuff like this doesn't grant you the right to treat whatever you say as facts, when 1) You're obviously wrong and 2) You're not taking the time necessary to actually fact check your comments about European countries. This is so typically American it hurts. You're an ignorant, and thank you for proving that.
So the prayer room suggestion was turned down. That's good. What are you trying to prove with this? There'll always be people making ill-founded suggestions like this, like the stand-your-ground Law. The difference is that suggestions like that doesn't come to life here.
-
That argument is simply bullshit. So do it on a per-capita basis.
Studies shows that the rates of murder, rape, corruption, state of health care, happiness, education etc are much worse in religious countries and states than in secular. In the 90s, a study even revealed that only 0.2% of the prison population in the US are atheist (agnostic). There's a tendency that states (US) with high murder rates are highly religious, while states with the lowest murder rates are among the least religious.
Tell that to California, or Illinois, or New York, all of which are more secular than Iowa, or Nebraska, or Kansas. The first three have very high murder rates, and the last three are fairly low. Having lived in California and Iowa and Tennessee, I can ASSURE you that the latter two have a lower murder rate than the first. Now, I admit to having hated Tennessee, but that was simply because I am not fond of the SBC.
"The fact that the Government only lists a 1.5% of Muslims simply indicates under-reporting"
Inventing stuff like this doesn't grant you the right to treat whatever you say as facts, when 1) You're obviously wrong and 2) You're not taking the time necessary to actually fact check your comments about European countries. This is so typically American it hurts. You're an ignorant, and thank you for proving that.
When you have no logical response, resort to insult. Sorry, but that won't play in Peoria, or anywhere else, for that matter.
So the prayer room suggestion was turned down. That's good. What are you trying to prove with this? There'll always be people making ill-founded suggestions like this, like the stand-your-ground Law. The difference is that suggestions like that doesn't come to life here.
The stand your ground law is actually one of our better ones, but I would not expect a European quasi-Socialist to get it, any more than I expect you to understand the logic of paying less than about US$6.00 for a gallon of gas, with 80% of that being Tax, or paying (at least in France) less than 75% income tax if you make over 1,000,000 euros a year. Go figure.
-
Quasi-socialist, eh? Is that your view on Europe? We're all holding hands and watch arte-noir movies together?
The taxation here allows us to have free health care, free education, 5 (in average 6, for some 7) weeks vacation a year, 6 months maternity leave etc etc. We don't complain, simply because all in all, it works. I don't even know what your point is with that, other than shooting yourself in the foot with that remark.
Your murder rate facts contradicts studies on the subject. Last time I checked, there was an increase of homicides that can be written off as justified related to the stand-your-ground law. The difference is cultural. The mindset is different. Our mindset is basically that people are not allowed to kill people. Your mindset is to implement exceptions.
In 2015, the murder rate in Kansas was higher than that of new york. Same with Nebraska.
-
Quasi-socialist, eh? Is that your view on Europe? We're all holding hands and watch arte-noir movies together?
The taxation here allows us to have free health care, free education, 5 (in average 6, for some 7) weeks vacation a year, 6 months maternity leave etc etc. We don't complain, simply because all in all, it works. I don't even know what your point is with that, other than shooting yourself in the foot with that remark.
Your murder rate facts contradicts studies on the subject. Last time I checked, there was an increase of homicides that can be written off as justified related to the stand-your-ground law. The difference is cultural. The mindset is different. Our mindset is basically that people are not allowed to kill people. Your mindset is to implement exceptions.
In 2015, the murder rate in Kansas was higher than that of new york. Same with Nebraska.
For some reason, I doubt the statistics for NY, KS, and NE, and that doesn't even mention CA and IL, or IA.
Your vaunted free health care is such that people who have the money often come here to get medical treatments in order to avoid the delays so common in Europe. This of course in no way justifies the mess of our health system, which admittedly could use reform.
We also have free vacation, albeit not as much. If you need that much holiday, you are lazy. We also have free public education, so that is just a stupid pat-on-the-back comment. We also get maternity leave, although again, not as much. If you need six months leave, you should probably just stay home and be a housewife.
And the fact that your "culture" (I use the term loosely) does not allow a man to protect himself, his family, and his property, but would charge him with murder for defending himself against a would-be rapist and/or murderer, simply implies gross retardation on the part of your lawmakers and the morons who elect them.
European culture USED to have value and relevance. Now it is a disaster of immorality, cultural filth, and incivility. All you have to do is look at the attacks holding France hostage, in thrall to the Muslim animals she has allowed into the nation, to observe what I am talking about. I realise you may be too dense to do that... But there you are.
-
First of all, telling someone they're ignorant on a subject is not offensive. It merely suggests that you're uninformed. Referring to someone as dense is another thing. I didn't expect a more elegant, respectful, grown up level of debate from you though, so I'll let that slip.
For some reason, I doubt the statistics for NY, KS, and NE, and that doesn't even mention CA and IL, or IA.
Of course you do. Pick and choose to fit your argument. Standard, boring MO.
Your vaunted free health care is such that people who have the money often come here to get medical treatments in order to avoid the delays so common in Europe. This of course in no way justifies the mess of our health system, which admittedly could use reform.
Yes, people go abroad, not only to the US, to skip the queue, which is totally fine. You say "often", I say do your research, again. You're just parroting whatever post shared on Facebook or article read on the internet you chose to base your standpoint on.
We also have free vacation, albeit not as much. If you need that much holiday, you are lazy.
Haha, really? It's not about who "needs" that much vacation, it's about how the system works as a whole. People are generally happy here. Part of the reason for that is not "feeling" over encumbered by labor. We're not lazy. We're progressive, innovative and hard at work. We just have a system that realizes you don't get a happy population paying them a minimum wage of only $7.50 (as opposed to ~$20), and a happy population with a satisfied and rested working force are more productive and innovative. There's always exceptions to this. Again, your view on the European way (especially the Scandinavian way) is tainted with your own definition of right and wrong.
And the fact that your "culture" (I use the term loosely) does not allow a man to protect himself, his family, and his property, but would charge him with murder for defending himself against a would-be rapist and/or murderer, simply implies gross retardation on the part of your lawmakers and the morons who elect them.
We do allow people to protect themselfs. We just don't justify killing other people in self-defence. I actually agree with you on this point though to some extent, but again, it's a mindset that doesn't value ones life over anothers. It's a fundamental difference between Europe and the US, there's no right or wrong. We have different opinions about this, and that's that.
European culture USED to have value and relevance. Now it is a disaster of immorality, cultural filth, and incivility. All you have to do is look at the attacks holding France hostage, in thrall to the Muslim animals she has allowed into the nation, to observe what I am talking about. I realise you may be too dense to do that... But there you are.
Immorality? Where? Cultural filth? Where? We largely honour our culture and our traditions. Mostly because we actually have culture and traditions that dates back centuries, something that the US lacks.
You're offering me an example of what has happened in France. We refer to that as terrorism, a term that is largely regarded as "something about Muslims". How many civilian lives has been lost due to America's invasion in the Middle East since 2001? You call it war, that gives you the ability to write those deaths off as collateral damage. How many lives lost in general does America account for in the populistic pursuit of spreading democracy and freedom? The definition of terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. - Those can be based in religion. Last time I checked, the largest so-called secular country in the world has "In God we trust" printed on their dollar bills.
The fact that you're using the term "Muslim animals" says everything about you. You're not only an ignorant, you're also a bigot. I'll generally disregard any position you take or argument you make from here on out, because you're simply not mentally or intellectually fit to participate in a debate about these subjects, at all.
So, to back up a bit:
It doesn't really change anything regarding religion and flat earth.
-
Even I agree the minimum wage issue here IS an issue. But what is the point of paying someone US$20.00 an hour if you are going to tax them at 55%, as Belgium does?
Furthermore, your whining about war simply means you,like most Europeans, are wusses. What we SHOULD do with Islamic State is go to the territory they control and carpet-bomb it so that anything larger than a cockroach ceases to exist. The same goes for Assad and Iran.
Given that in most Scandinavian States, with Finland being a notable exception, the Churches, being a significant PART of the culture and tradition you claim to have, now ordain and marry homosexuals, and tolerate just about every other liberal perversion, I would say your vaunted culture and tradition has mostly been betrayed.
I agree that the USA is a young country, and that carries weaknesses. But at least we are not quite yet at the State cultural-national suicide that most of Scandinavia has gotten to. The fact that our money has that motto on is not my personal preference, and it only started in the McCarthy era of the 1950's.
Yes, I do refer to Muslims as animals. I have read the Qur'an three times, and know some of it in Arabic. I have read the Haadith of the "Prophet". I have attended mosques. I know the threat of which I speak. The fact that YOU are too dim to realise the danger they represent is your problem, and not mine.
-
Even I agree the minimum wage issue here IS an issue. But what is the point of paying someone US$20.00 an hour if you are going to tax them at 55%, as Belgium does?
Furthermore, your whining about war simply means you,like most Europeans, are wusses. What we SHOULD do with Islamic State is go to the territory they control and carpet-bomb it so that anything larger than a cockroach ceases to exist. The same goes for Assad and Iran.
Given that in most Scandinavian States, with Finland being a notable exception, the Churches, being a significant PART of the culture and tradition you claim to have, now ordain and marry homosexuals, and tolerate just about every other liberal perversion, I would say your vaunted culture and tradition has mostly been betrayed.
I agree that the USA is a young country, and that carries weaknesses. But at least we are not quite yet at the State cultural-national suicide that most of Scandinavia has gotten to. The fact that our money has that motto on is not my personal preference, and it only started in the McCarthy era of the 1950's.
Again, an entire reply consisting of ignorance and bigotry. I'm not defending Islam. In fact, I hate the institution that is religion in itself.
Yes, I do refer to Muslims as animals. I have read the Qur'an three times, and know some of it in Arabic. I have read the Haadith of the "Prophet". I have attended mosques. I know the threat of which I speak. The fact that YOU are too dim to realise the danger they represent is your problem, and not mine.
"They" - There it is. You're an idiot, at best. Your viewpoints makes you a part of the group you refer to as "they" for everyone not consumed by the level of bigotry at display here. So, I'll just pull an Intikam, put you on ignore and await someone with an acceptable level of intelligence to add something to this thread. For your information, it doesn't take much.
-
So I have won the argument. When you have no logical response, turn to insults and ignore. Typical liberal. And you are ASSuming, of course, that I appreciate the unique blend of State and Religion in the USA. In reality, I don't. If it were my choice, religious schools K-12 would be closed. All children would be educated in Public Schools. Religious organisations would have to register with the State, and WOULD pay Tax. The Gregorian Calendar would be replaced by a secular one, probably the French Republican Calendar. Marriages would be recognised only civilly, and a religious wedding would be your issue.
But of course,you ASSume that because I am a churchgoer, I must like all the weird aspects about religion and State in the USA. Well, you know what they say about ASSuming.
-
So I have won the argument.
Lets see, carpet bomb them, check, homosexuals-perversion, check, Muslim=animals, check, flag on lawn, red-neck, check.
Sometimes the last man speaking isn't the winner, It's just that mental case with a bible shouting from the hood of the SUV standing on bricks on his lawn, again, and there is no sport in shooting fish in a barrel, have fun.
-
So I have won the argument.
Lets see, carpet bomb them, check, homosexuals-perversion, check, Muslim=animals, check, flag on lawn, red-neck, check.
Sometimes the last man speaking isn't the winner, It's just that mental case with a bible shouting from the hood of the SUV standing on bricks on his lawn, again, and there is no sport in shooting fish in a barrel, have fun.
That was just a retarded argument. Since I don't have a flag on the lawn, nor a Bible to thump (I do own many versions, just not for that purpose), and I have already stated my belief in Secularism.
Keep in mind, that according to Sharia, which Muslims want to impose in any country in which they become the majority (there is already a Muslim political party in Holland that has as its stated purpose a REFUSAL to assimilate), atheists are punished by death. Christians and Jews may only exist if they pay a special Tax to do so, called the Jizyah Tax. They also are subject to all kinds of rules that make them Second Class citizens, such as not being able to serve as a witness in a court case involving a Muslim, men not being able to marry Muslim women, but the reverse being allowed and encouraged, being required to wear special clothing so they are immediately identifiable (shades of Nazism, anyone? The Qur'an and the Haadith had it first), and much more.
You are succeeding in making yourself look like a blithering idiot. But please: do continue. It amuses me.
-
So I have won the argument.
Lets see, carpet bomb them, check, homosexuals-perversion, check, Muslim=animals, check, flag on lawn, red-neck, check.
Sometimes the last man speaking isn't the winner, It's just that mental case with a bible shouting from the hood of the SUV standing on bricks on his lawn, again, and there is no sport in shooting fish in a barrel, have fun.
That was just a retarded argument. Since I don't have a flag on the lawn, nor a Bible to thump (I do own many versions, just not for that purpose), and I have already stated my belief in Secularism.
Keep in mind, that according to Sharia, which Muslims want to impose in any country in which they become the majority (there is already a Muslim political party in Holland that has as its stated purpose a REFUSAL to assimilate), atheists are punished by death. Christians and Jews may only exist if they pay a special Tax to do so, called the Jizyah Tax. They also are subject to all kinds of rules that make them Second Class citizens, such as not being able to serve as a witness in a court case involving a Muslim, men not being able to marry Muslim women, but the reverse being allowed and encouraged, being required to wear special clothing so they are immediately identifiable (shades of Nazism, anyone? The Qur'an and the Haadith had it first), and much more.
You are succeeding in making yourself look like a blithering idiot. But please: do continue. It amuses me.
Sharia law is another example of men using religion as a form of control. All organized religion operates for the same purpose. To own a Man's mind, and to extort him in the process. It is the evil men that twist Islam for their own gain that are the problem.
Everyone looks at dark ages and understands Catholicism as the problem it was, and laugh at how dumb people must have been at the time. Yet we excuse Modern Islam, which is just as oppressive, controlling, and regressive. We look at the barbaric customs and pretend it is normal for the sake of "multi-culturalism" and not being charged with hate speech (something we hopefully wont have to worry about in America thanks to our 1st Amendment).
I value Women in society, I think homosexuals have a right to consensual relationships. Most of all, I don't consider someone less than human, or worthy of death, for not agreeing with my concept of God. You can hate religion as a whole, but you have to be honest about which one goes against those basic human rights I just spoke of. We can hate Billy Graham and Evangelicals, but they aren't still executing people in the streets.
-
The ONLY one I really have serious issues with is Islam, simply because of their tendency to enjoy blowing crap up.
I am sorry...
You claim to have studied Islam yet you are going to make the claim that Islam enjoys blowing crap up...
That's funny...
Also xenophobic and a couple of other phobes mixed in...
-
Now, on a purely PERSONAL level, I do believe the State should be separate from the Church =/= And Islam should be forbidden outright as a direct threat to the State
Now, on a purely PERSONAL level, I do believe the State should be separate from the Church =/= ALL religions should be obligated to register with the State
Do you typically exhibit this extraordinary level of cognitive dissonance?
Or is it the onset of early Alzheimer's?
Honestly, you appear to be nothing more than a hypocrite of the HIGHEST order.
I think you need to go down and shack up with Czar Bush I and II....
They are still hell bent on fighting the Crusades...
-
TOTALLACKEY, that was a stupid response. Islam should be forbidden because, w/ Sharia, it attempts to undercut the constitution of of a secular State, ASIDE from liking to blow crap up. As far as homosexuality, have any of you ever seen a gay goat or a gay canary? No. Only people (about 3%) like to (in the case of men) pack their pork in another dude's poop schute. Now, what you do in your bedroom is your business, & I'm no peeping Tom, but DON'T try to teach my kids that this is normal behaviour in the public schools. Keep your unusual preferences to yourself. Back to my original point, Islam is really the only religion w/ which I have issues, & that is because they are by their own definition subversive of State Power.
-
Mind blown. One must resist the urge to go apeshit.
-
Mind blown. One must resist the urge to go apeshit.
My, that's mature. Well, no one ever gave you much credit for having anything much in the way of brains.
You, know, if I told a psychiatrist that I wanted my left arm surgically removed, he would put me on meds and in therapy. But if I tell him I want my junk removed, somehow that $h!t is normal! Go figure!
-
For someone who uses insults to other peoples intelligence as a default you have a lot of gaps in your own knowledge. For instance;
An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are of homosexual males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs, more of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.
One report on sheep cited below states:
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams).
Bison, Bonobo's, dolphins, elephants, giraffes, lions same sex relationships of both kinds have all been noted, up to 25% of female Japanese macaques in some troops.
Peter Bockman, the scientific advisor of the exhibition Against Nature? in 2007, stated;
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.
I know your grubby little book and its backward thinking adherents don't like it, but it's true, which is one of the reasons why, the world would be a better place without it and them.
-
For someone who uses insults to other peoples intelligence as a default you have a lot of gaps in your own knowledge. For instance;
An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are of homosexual males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs, more of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.
One report on sheep cited below states:
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams).
Bison, Bonobo's, dolphins, elephants, giraffes, lions same sex relationships of both kinds have all been noted, up to 25% of female Japanese macaques in some troops.
Peter Bockman, the scientific advisor of the exhibition Against Nature? in 2007, stated;
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.
I know your grubby little book and its backward thinking adherents don't like it, but it's true, which is one of the reasons why, the world would be a better place without it and them.
Actually, the Bible has no relevance to my objection to homosexuality. I notice you do not give references for your sources, which causes me question the legitimacy of same.
Beyond this, strictly on the human level, continuous anal sex, with EITHER gender, is injurious to health. It ultimately can result in the receiver having to wear a bag courtesy of a worn out sphincter. In other words, wrong hole, idiots!
Certainly there are hermaphroditic species in nature, as well as asexual ones. No $h!t, Shirlock! That is expected. Worms don't reproduce by normal male-female reproduction. The idea that two birds, or even two lions, of the same gender would protect the offspring is not shocking in any way. But the idea of two male lions butt-humping each other? Not so much.
I have seen idiocy on high levels before, but never quite to THIS degree. Oh, well. As Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
-
Oh, and tell me how great Sweden is, when they violate the rights of a midwife. I don't generally see much Fox News, but:
www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/12/swedish-midwife-loses-fight-to-be-exempt-from-performing-abortions.html?ref=yfp
So, lovely country that won't even keep up with the European code of rights.
-
No sources needed, homosexuality in nature has been known for quite a while now. It is probably an evolutionary step that either works out or doesn't. The balance of the birth rate, for instance with the example of the swans, will decide it in the long run. That's how evolution works.
To be quite honest, and objective, you're the only one standing out as an idiot here. The increasing amount of curse word usage, to either cover for the fact that you're raging because of inadequacy or because the institution in which you have invested all of your beliefs is being subjected to what you define as blasphemy, is a testiment to that.
-
And to reiterate, Poseidon, what does your bigot views on Islam have to do with a religious view on flat earth? What makes your chosen deity the preferred one amongst the 4199 other dieties, and what is its view on the shape of the earth?
-
No sources needed, homosexuality in nature has been known for quite a while now. It is probably an evolutionary step that either works out or doesn't. The balance of the birth rate, for instance with the example of the swans, will decide it in the long run. That's how evolution works.
To be quite honest, and objective, you're the only one standing out as an idiot here. The increasing amount of curse word usage, to either cover for the fact that you're raging because of inadequacy or because the institution in which you have invested all of your beliefs is being subjected to what you define as blasphemy, is a testiment to that.
Oh, please. The fact that you cannot spell would indicate a certain proof of idiocy on your part. And again, dip$h!t, I am NOT relying on the Bible for my opposition to homosexuality. The fact that I have to say that more than once to you simply confirms my estimation of your stupidity.
Again, cite sources, or shut your pie-hole.
Stupid is as stupid does.
-
No sources needed, homosexuality in nature has been known for quite a while now. It is probably an evolutionary step that either works out or doesn't. The balance of the birth rate, for instance with the example of the swans, will decide it in the long run. That's how evolution works.
To be quite honest, and objective, you're the only one standing out as an idiot here. The increasing amount of curse word usage, to either cover for the fact that you're raging because of inadequacy or because the institution in which you have invested all of your beliefs is being subjected to what you define as blasphemy, is a testiment to that.
Oh, please. The fact that you cannot spell would indicate a certain proof of idiocy on your part. And again, dip$h!t, I am NOT relying on the Bible for my opposition to homosexuality. The fact that I have to say that more than once to you simply confirms my estimation of your stupidity.
Again, cite sources, or shut your pie-hole.
Stupid is as stupid does.
You do realize I am debating with you in your native tongue, right?
-
And to reiterate, Poseidon, what does your bigot views on Islam have to do with a religious view on flat earth? What makes your chosen deity the preferred one amongst the 4199 other dieties, and what is its view on the shape of the earth?
Those are not the relevant questions. I stated at the beginning of this thread that I do NOT presume to dictate a person's future location in the eternal realms.
And it is not bigoted to state the truth about the goals of Islam. If you are too stupid to read the Qur'an and the Haadith for yourself and confirm what I am saying, then that is your problem and not mine.
And if you are going to debate with me in ANY tongue, at least DO attempt to appear educated, as I would do if I attempted this in Spanish. The occasional typo is fine and we all make them. But your conjugation and singular-plural disasters are starting to wear on my last nerve, such that ANY error you make is getting annoying.
-
And to reiterate, Poseidon, what does your bigot views on Islam have to do with a religious view on flat earth? What makes your chosen deity the preferred one amongst the 4199 other dieties, and what is its view on the shape of the earth?
Those are not the relevant questions. I stated at the beginning of this thread that I do NOT presume to dictate a person's future location in the eternal realms.
And it is not bigoted to state the truth about the goals of Islam. If you are too stupid to read the Qur'an and the Haadith for yourself and confirm what I am saying, then that is your problem and not mine.
And if you are going to debate with me in ANY tongue, at least DO attempt to appear educated, as I would do if I attempted this in Spanish. The occasional typo is fine and we all make them. But your conjugation and singular-plural disasters are starting to wear on my last nerve, such that ANY error you make is getting annoying.
Do you realize how dumb that make you look?
Can you please list the goals of Christianity, catholicism, Judaism and Buddhism according to the scripture, so we can compare with Islam?
Besides, I've been in Afghanistan. A lot of Muslims fought Taleban shoulder to shoulder with ISAF. Local Muslims risked their lives and their families lives helping ISAF just by merely cleaning or cooking in Camp bastion and camp price.
-
And your point is... Christians haven't lived by Old Testament rules in 2,000 years, although in the earlier years of the Church they did spill quite a bit of blood. But they at least have the decency to admit it.
The Old Testament did command Hebrews to do some pretty brutal stuff, but, hm, that was, what, 4,000 years ago?
The Buddhists were violent in the distant past, but today are almost UNIVERSALLY known for their peaceful, gentle manners, the exception being in Myanmar (Burma), where they are brutalising the Rohingya Muslim people, although that fight is more about ethnicity than it is about religion.
The point I am making is that Islam has ALWAYS been viciously violent, and remains so to this day. Although it is true to say that not ALL Muslims are terrorists, it is ALSO true to say that the VAST majority of terrorists in the world ARE Muslim.
Let's put it this way. Jews living with Christians, 21st Century: few problems. Jews with Hindus, no problems. Jews with Buddhists, no problems, Jews with atheists, few problems. Christians with Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists,few or no problems. Etc, etc.
Muslims living with Jews: Problems. Muslims living with Christians: Problems. Muslims living with Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists: Problems. MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS: HUGE PROBLEMS!
So, you tell me... should civilised people be concerned or not?
I have to log off for now, but there you are.
-
This will be my only warning to everyone in the thread. Refrain from personal attacks.
-
JUNKER, fair enough. Incidentally, Catholics ARE Christians, in fact, the largest variety OF them. Although I am NOT particularly fond of certain aspects of Roman Catholicism, making a distinction between "Christianity" and "Catholicism" simply indicates that you have very little knowledge of the subject.
-
It never ceases to amaze when I hear nationalist, homophobic people advocating the destruction (carpet bomb) or banning (and how do you do that without violence) of Islam for its violence and intolerance, how much the two mirror each other.
-
It never ceases to amaze when I hear nationalist, homophobic people advocating the destruction (carpet bomb) or banning (and how do you do that without violence) of Islam for its violence and intolerance, how much the two mirror each other.
First off, let's analyse the word "homophobe". Homo means same, and phobe refers to the fear of. So I am afraid of things that are the same. I hope I don't glance up tonight and see two stars, or look down at my two hands. Crap, I would jump out of my socks! I LOVE politically correct folk when they invent new jargon. They simply show themselves to have a low IQ. And what sexuality has to do with Islam, except that they punish being gay by death, is beyond me.
And you ban Islam in America by rounding up all Muslims and giving them one way, all expense paid tickets to their nations of origin. If they are native born, you cancel their citizenship and have them pick one of the 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world and send them there. Simple.
-
And if they don't want to go, or if other more enlightened Americans object and try to protect them?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homophobe
-
Poseidon, your extremism is almost so extreme it's hard to believe you're even a real person.
You are taking away from the very real issues by injecting hatred and bigotry. It's hard to honestly discuss the problem that is Radical Islam, which is a problem and does exist, whether or not certain people acknowledge it. Also it's a culture clash issue. In my opinion, if you experimentally force different cultures, with radical different concepts on Women's rights, tolerance, sexuality etc, to coexist, you're gonna have a bad time.
-
And if they don't want to go, or if other more enlightened Americans object and try to protect them?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homophobe
Posting the definition of homophobe was dumb. I know that the PC culture has coined a retarded word. What I explained was that they misused the Greek to do it, and in so doing, confirmed their general lack of intelligence.
If they don't want to go, they are forced at military gunpoint. No violence. We make them an offer they can't refuse, to quote "The Godfather".
THE TRUTH, that is my point. Because of their culture, ALL Muslims, unless they REJECT the Qur'an, which they cannot do and stay Muslim, are inherently radical, even if they don't realise it. It is best if they live in their world, an we ours. If they want to honour kill their women, and subject them to FGM, and do other Medieval crap, fine, but do it elsewhere. Not here.
-
Which all goes to show you are just the flip side of the same coin, Extremists, feeding from the hate of others to become more hateful, sad.
-
FYI. FGM is a cultural practice and isn't just Moslem, there are 17 african countries where it is practiced by christians as well.
-
Which all goes to show you are just the flip side of the same coin, fundamentalists, feeding from the hate of others to become more hateful, sad.
See, that remark just indicates your entire lack of logic, given that I believe in Secularism. If it were up to me, all private schools K-12 would be closed, and children would be educated in Public Schools. The religious organisations would register with the State, and would pay Tax. The metric system would be adopted, as would the French Republican Calendar, to eliminate the religious influence of the Gregorian Calendar.
I am a churchgoer, to a conservative Church, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Nevertheless, these are the policies in which I believe. Calling me any kind of a fundamentalist just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Islam is a threat to the State. That is my SOLE reason for rejecting it. I would likely do the same to Jehovah's Witnesses. And that is because they do not serve in the military or salute the flag. I would think about them, because they are so non-offensive in general. But they would be required to give minors blood transfusions, and would NOT be able to make the decision for other people either, unless that person had allowed them to.
But I at this point don't expect you to use intelligence or logic. I pretty much have determined that you possess neither.
Very few Christians practice FGM, and where they do, it is USUALLY in response to heavy Muslim influence, albeit not always. But no one ever gave Sub-Saharan Africa much credit for brilliance. The continent was a mess before the British and the French got there, and its been a mess since they left.
-
Extremist would be the word I was looking for ( I've changed it).
Wrong again about the FGM, according to UNICEF "in Niger 55 percent of Christian women and girls had experienced it, compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts", but don't let the facts get in the way.
-
FYI. FGM is a cultural practice and isn't just Moslem, there are 17 african countries where it is practiced by christians as well.
Exactly why I added my point about cultures clashing. There is absolutely no way to look at Arab cultures objectively and say that they share your same values when it comes to women's rights and equality. You'd have to rationalize or just outright lie to say that they do.
52% of Muslims in the UK believe that homosexuality should be banned. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/)
Same reason why there is the illegal immigration debate going on right now in America. People in Honduras are from a complete different culture than what is acceptable in civilized Western Society. The result, two of them gang rape a freshman in a high school not far from me. The people who are in charge of protecting that girl instead just call everyone a racist and protect the rapists. That is the society we live in now.
-
Extremist would be the word I was looking for ( I've changed it).
Wrong again about the FGM, according to UNICEF "in Niger 55 percent of Christian women and girls had experienced it, compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts", but don't let the facts get in the way.
Niger is ONE country. But, don't use your brain. I don't expect you to use a non-existent organ.
And note I did say, "albeit not always."
-
FYI. FGM is a cultural practice and isn't just Moslem, there are 17 african countries where it is practiced by christians as well.
Exactly why I added my point about cultures clashing. There is absolutely no way to look at Arab cultures objectively and say that they share your same values when it comes to women's rights and equality. You'd have to rationalize or just outright lie to say that they do.
52% of Muslims in the UK believe that homosexuality should be banned. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/)
Same reason why there is the illegal immigration debate going on right now in America. People in Honduras are from a complete different culture than what is acceptable in civilized Western Society. The result, two of them gang rape a freshman in a high school not far from me. The people who are in charge of protecting that girl instead just call everyone a racist and protect the rapists. That is the society we live in now.
I rest my case.
-
Also note my general comments about the backwardness of Sub-Saharan Africa, Niger or otherwise. The continent was a disaster before the British and the French, and since they left.
-
You asked why they would lie about flat earth. The Qur'an states that Satan will mislead them all and he will command them to change the creation of God [4:119], this is why mankind says that the earth is a globe instead of flat. They also say it took billions of years for the heavens and earth to be created when God said it took 6 days in Genesis and the Qur'an [50:38]. They also say mankind evolved from apes over millions of years instead of Adam being created from dust like Genesis and the Qur'an say. Mankind follows Satan and have changed the creation of God. But no change should there be in the creation of God, that is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know [30:30]. And so you have Christians and Muslims believing the earth is a globe and all those other changes because they do not know and take their religion as amusement and diversion and are thus deluded by the world [7:51]. They also divided the religion and became sects [23:52 - 53], yet God revealed the Qur'an, the Gospel, and the Torah [3:3 - 4], and indeed it is one religion, the religion of Abraham inclining toward truth [2:135].
For more verses from all 3 Books revealed by God and information on flat earth, read
https://quranicwarners.org/creation/
-
And things don't self-create, either. I DO understand that you are not that bright, but do TRY to come up with better arguments than that!
What created God?
ROUNDY, come on, you can do better than that! Even Plato spoke of the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover. Ultimately, you come back to something that has ALWAYS itself existed. Now scientists themselves know that the Universe itself had a beginning. So beyond that you have to posit Something Else.
No, they don't. There's no reason to assume the universe ever had a beginning. We have reason to think there was a Big Bang but not necessarily that the matter that came out of the Big Bang wasn't always there. Indeed given that it's a scientific principle that matter and energy can't just appear out of nowhere I would suggest that what you think scientists know and what they actually know are contradictory to each other.
And if you accept the theory that what we call the universe is actually one of many similar universes and that new "universes" are constantly being created as many scientists do it even further takes away the necessity of a divine Creator.
No need to posit "something else".
If everything must have been created, so must have been God. If it's possible for something to exist without being created, then there's no reason to assume that the universe doesn't fall into that category itself. But as you said, things don't self-create. The only rational explanation if that is the case is that the substance of the universe was always there. Or God, I suppose, but you haven't provided a shred of reason to believe His existence is more likely.
-
Where I want to get to is the question whether "flat-earth automatically calls for believing in God as the creator or not?."
God - I don't think so because personally I don't believe in a god. However, it would certainly need a creator. Nothing about the FE hypothesis present on the site could have occurred naturally. By that I mean the laws and theories of physics are not observed. FE throw these out where they are inconvenient but has yet to replace them with laws and theories (and I mean theories here, not wild unsupported ideas) that can support the natural formation of the FE - ipso facto - the FE is a creation.
-
Where I want to get to is the question whether "flat-earth automatically calls for believing in God as the creator or not?."
God - I don't think so because personally I don't believe in a god. However, it would certainly need a creator. Nothing about the FE hypothesis present on the site could have occurred naturally. By that I mean the laws and theories of physics are not observed. FE throw these out where they are inconvenient but has yet to replace them with laws and theories (and I mean theories here, not wild unsupported ideas) that can support the natural formation of the FE - ipso facto - the FE is a creation.
If you set physical laws in such a way that makes your observations impossible, then that doesn't really make any sense to say "this requires a creator". Our current understanding of the physical universe is actually quite limited, with even objects as obvious as galaxies being currently unexplained under most theories. To say "this does not fit our current physical models, so therefore it was made by a god" is quite silly, and speaks only to your own ignorance of the subject at hand. You are fit to talk about neither a round earth nor a flat earth.
-
If you set physical laws in such a way that makes your observations impossible, then that doesn't really make any sense to say "this requires a creator". Our current understanding of the physical universe is actually quite limited, with even objects as obvious as galaxies being currently unexplained under most theories. To say "this does not fit our current physical models, so therefore it was made by a god" is quite silly, and speaks only to your own ignorance of the subject at hand. You are fit to talk about neither a round earth nor a flat earth.
Thanks for the insult.
The thing with galaxies is, well we do understand them to some extent, probably greater than you think - we have reasonable hypothesis for how they formed, what they consist of and we do observe many, many of them so are forced to "They are natural, but we don't yet fully understand them". In the case of FE, we have many one-off things that cannot be explained and cannot be seen anywhere else in the visible universe. For instance, under RE we have robust theories that explain the birth and evolution of stars, and when we apply those theories to the sun (assuming a spherical earth outlook) it fits perfectly. It's just another star. However, under an FE outlook, we are forced to see the sun as not being a star at all. It has peculiar properties and peculiar behaviors that have no model to explain them. Under FE hypotheses (there is more than one, and the sun is different in most of them) it is truly unique in the cosmos and its properties and behaviors only came into being with the creation of whatever FE hypothesis you adopt.
-
People are funny, they want to make everything out soooo big. Fact, you're on God's little footstool covered in a molten glass dome. The footstool is probably around 20,000 miles in diameter and the dome say 400 miles up in the center. Beyond the dome is Heaven, God gives us this light show in the sky projected on the dome. How big is heaven, you're going to need to die here in the flesh to find out. But get a grip folks, it's a small world we live in, God likens it to a tent and we are Grasshoppers jumping around inside. Space? It's Gods painting. Your days are numbered, use them wisely, this is a test of your faith, you ain't that smart, your brain barely registers, your a fucking grasshopper for Gods sake.
God and Time have always existed together, the problem is, you can't wrap your head around that. It's ok, you're not supposed to, it got one A-hole in trouble, now look at him, loser......
-
I agree. But that isn't the mainstream thought process. That dictates that our existence is a mere coincidence, as statistically impossible as it would be, and there is no real explanation for the sudden appearance of life and the universe.
I didn't say that ^. I just don't know how to do the quotes thingy
Yes but because of the unfathomable number of planets in our universe it's is statistically likely that life would occur
-
I agree. But that isn't the mainstream thought process. That dictates that our existence is a mere coincidence, as statistically impossible as it would be, and there is no real explanation for the sudden appearance of life and the universe.
I didn't say that ^. I just don't know how to do the quotes thingy
Yes but because of the unfathomable number of planets in our universe it's is statistically likely that life would occur
Not if the laws governing the universe themselves weren't fine-tuned on several fronts to allow for the existence of life.
-
I agree. But that isn't the mainstream thought process. That dictates that our existence is a mere coincidence, as statistically impossible as it would be, and there is no real explanation for the sudden appearance of life and the universe.
I didn't say that ^. I just don't know how to do the quotes thingy
Yes but because of the unfathomable number of planets in our universe it's is statistically likely that life would occur
Not if the laws governing the universe themselves weren't fine-tuned on several fronts to allow for the existence of life.
To be fair, this assumes life can't exist in another configuration of physics. Or that a universe wouldn't stabalize on its own.
-
I agree. But that isn't the mainstream thought process. That dictates that our existence is a mere coincidence, as statistically impossible as it would be, and there is no real explanation for the sudden appearance of life and the universe.
I didn't say that ^. I just don't know how to do the quotes thingy
Yes but because of the unfathomable number of planets in our universe it's is statistically likely that life would occur
Not if the laws governing the universe themselves weren't fine-tuned on several fronts to allow for the existence of life.
To be fair, this assumes life can't exist in another configuration of physics.
Well, sure, but it's a pretty safe bet that (for just one example) if our atoms couldn't hold together because the strong nuclear force was slightly off from where it is, life wouldn't be possible.
Or that a universe wouldn't stabalize on its own.
"Stabilize?" You mean that if life hadn't been possible the universe would have, like, fixed itself so that life would have been possible? Can you explain this better?
-
Well, sure, but it's a pretty safe bet that (for just one example) if our atoms couldn't hold together because the strong nuclear force was slightly off from where it is, life wouldn't be possible.
Sure. Life as we know it. But that doesn't mean other patterns couldn't emerge. Other forces binding sub-atomic particles together or perhaps those particles simply creating their own patterns. I mean, how did anything form just because protons and neutrons could form? How did they even decide to form in that configuration anyway? And where did Electrons come in? It's all weird to think about but I can't see a reason why other things wouldn't have occured if variables would have changed.
"Stabilize?" You mean that if life hadn't been possible the universe would have, like, fixed itself so that life would have been possible? Can you explain this better?
Not "fixed" itself, more like calmed down and found some kind of order. Like if the strong nuclear force didn't exist, all those sub-atomic particles would still exist, floating around. Eventually something would happen to make them slow down, possibly condense using other forces. But the hot soupy mess of creation would become relatively stable somehow. Different rules, sure, but stable rules. And where there's rules, there's patterns. And where there's patterns, life is possible. Not guarnteed, but possible.
-
Well, sure, but it's a pretty safe bet that (for just one example) if our atoms couldn't hold together because the strong nuclear force was slightly off from where it is, life wouldn't be possible.
Sure. Life as we know it. But that doesn't mean other patterns couldn't emerge. Other forces binding sub-atomic particles together or perhaps those particles simply creating their own patterns. I mean, how did anything form just because protons and neutrons could form? How did they even decide to form in that configuration anyway? And where did Electrons come in?
These are the very questions the various fundamental forces are supposed to explain. They wouldn't be able to exist without these laws being just right. If the strong nuclear force is just a tiny bit weaker, subatomic particles are just floating around, sure there may be some order to it but there's no chance for anything we would define as life.
It's all weird to think about but I can't see a reason why other things wouldn't have occured if variables would have changed.
That's what I'm saying, other things would have occurred.
Or that a universe wouldn't stabalize on its own.
"Stabilize?" You mean that if life hadn't been possible the universe would have, like, fixed itself so that life would have been possible? Can you explain this better?
Not "fixed" itself, more like calmed down and found some kind of order. Like if the strong nuclear force didn't exist, all those sub-atomic particles would still exist, floating around. Eventually something would happen to make them slow down, possibly condense using other forces. But the hot soupy mess of creation would become relatively stable somehow. Different rules, sure, but stable rules. And where there's rules, there's patterns. And where there's patterns, life is possible. Not guarnteed, but possible.
Pure speculation. This isn't science. If the strong nuclear force was too weak things would never calm down to the point where subatomic particles could suddenly bind together because the mechanism for it simply wouldn't be there. Saying "but something else might possibly happen..." well sure, I suppose, and there might be a God too, and you have to remember that we're talking about just one fundamental aspect of the universe that was fine-tuned for life, you'd have to say the same logic would apply to all the other things too, and it seems illogical to think that the universe would "right" itself no matter what was getting in the way of life. And if you believe the universe is so hell-bent on life existing, well, you are attributing a will on the part of the universe itself favoring the existence of life, and I am perfectly fine with accepting such a willful entity as God.
-
The universe is not in an optimal condition for life. There are in fact better possible conditions. It’s also less and less obvious a universe capable of supporting life is a unique configuration.
http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/113/the-not-so-fine-tuning-of-the-universe
-
If we define life as simply a set of conditions that occur in the right order, then really any objects in any given amount of universes could produce life. Even cosmic gasses, if they were to collide in space in just the right order, could produce a consciousness more vast than the human mind.
However, life in our universe is not this way, or at least the life we are familiar with is not. It's not a lightning flash of super-intelligence, it's self-replicating and evolving, with different tiers of consciousness. That does require a more specific universe. The idea that another universe could contain it is irrelevant, since as far as we know, only one universe exists, and it only has one law, that energy must be conserved. All other universal qualities stem from this one law, and anything that obeys it is theoretically allowed. The idea that our universe, specifically, could exist in some other configuration, is complete nonsense, because this means that the one law is not in some other universe; that is, the claim is that some other universe doesn't conserve energy. Since a universe that can't conserve energy would always, well, explode, then it cannot exist. Therefore, ours is the only kind of universe that exists. There can be 'parallel universes' in which different quantum probabilities resulted in different outcomes on a large scale, but overall, the qualities of our universe can't really be any different than they are without creating a universe that contradicts itself.
-
Well, sure, but it's a pretty safe bet that (for just one example) if our atoms couldn't hold together because the strong nuclear force was slightly off from where it is, life wouldn't be possible.
Sure. Life as we know it. But that doesn't mean other patterns couldn't emerge. Other forces binding sub-atomic particles together or perhaps those particles simply creating their own patterns. I mean, how did anything form just because protons and neutrons could form? How did they even decide to form in that configuration anyway? And where did Electrons come in?
These are the very questions the various fundamental forces are supposed to explain. They wouldn't be able to exist without these laws being just right. If the strong nuclear force is just a tiny bit weaker, subatomic particles are just floating around, sure there may be some order to it but there's no chance for anything we would define as life.
No disagreement there. The whole universe would be different so nothing would be "what we would define as..."But I still wonder why these rules exist and not others. Far as I know, no one knows that answer.
Or that a universe wouldn't stabalize on its own.
"Stabilize?" You mean that if life hadn't been possible the universe would have, like, fixed itself so that life would have been possible? Can you explain this better?
Not "fixed" itself, more like calmed down and found some kind of order. Like if the strong nuclear force didn't exist, all those sub-atomic particles would still exist, floating around. Eventually something would happen to make them slow down, possibly condense using other forces. But the hot soupy mess of creation would become relatively stable somehow. Different rules, sure, but stable rules. And where there's rules, there's patterns. And where there's patterns, life is possible. Not guarnteed, but possible.
Pure speculation. This isn't science. If the strong nuclear force was too weak things would never calm down to the point where subatomic particles could suddenly bind together because the mechanism for it simply wouldn't be there. Saying "but something else might possibly happen..." well sure, I suppose, and there might be a God too, and you have to remember that we're talking about just one fundamental aspect of the universe that was fine-tuned for life, you'd have to say the same logic would apply to all the other things too, and it seems illogical to think that the universe would "right" itself no matter what was getting in the way of life. And if you believe the universe is so hell-bent on life existing, well, you are attributing a will on the part of the universe itself favoring the existence of life, and I am perfectly fine with accepting such a willful entity as God.
It absolutely is pure speculation and not science because this is philosophy, religion, and society section, not science. :P
But seriously, it's less "the universe is hell bent on making life" but rather "Life just happens when order exists". It's not what we define as life, nor does it have to be complex, but as long as it replicates, takes in nutrients, spits out waste, etc.... it's life.