Pluvia
Hates Semicolons<br>;
You have super fast reactions.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Religion Thread: Is there a God or Not?
- Thread starter Phantom7
- Start date
- Status
IAmBlu3
Smash Champion
what the hell is 1337? lol. i've read that a couple times here and there and never found out =/.
just trying to think of this hurt my head.
side note: didn't know Hawking was agnostic. kind of surprising.
just trying to think of this hurt my head.
side note: didn't know Hawking was agnostic. kind of surprising.
Kief
Smash Ace
It's purely speculative. Hawkings himself admits the use of "imaginary time" to make his calculations work out right. There's nothing to "find out," either. It's not like we can make observations about the universe being created.
Er, how do you "disagree" with something that isn't a lifestyle choice- i.e. homosexuality- and call yourself a good person, let alone a good Christian?
This.
I'm letting this thread stay open for now, but back and forth bickering is where I'll close it. It's pointless and adds to nothing.
Discussion is ok. DEBATING is not, because this is not the Debate Room and no one is going to change anyone's opinion here.
I have a feeling I'm going to be disappointed tomorrow morning.
Fuelbi
Banned via Warnings
1337 is just numbers for leet, which is short for elite
That's the white hole theory, and he hasn't "found it out", it's just a hypothesis. What i meant was that science hasn't discovered it, and while there are hypothesises there isn't any generally accepted one, until gravity and evolution and the expanding universe and general relativity and so forth
IAmBlu3
Smash Champion
it's not a lifestyle choice. i called it that before and a gay dude ripped me a new *** hole (don't read that the wrong way
lol). it's simply a sexual preference. but let's get off the subject of homosexuality. man, this conversation topic so easily branches into other controversial topics lol(though i don't think homosexuality should be a controversial topic >__>.)
A good Christian is somene who practises his or her faith correctly. Whether that faith is good is a different story.
Being sexually attracted to children isn't a lifestyle choice, but people aren't okay with that either.
Just because you're born with an inclination doesn't mean it's morally acceptable to go out and practice it.
Again, good Christians don't hate the gays themselves, they just feel that that practice or promotion of homosexuality is immoral.
There are gay people who as a result of their Christian faith, believe that it is immoral and abstain from practicing homosexuality.
And it's not as if one's sexuality is permanent. There have been several cases of homosexuals turning straight in middle age, and vice versa.
People have even converted homosexuals into heterosexual Christians.
Anyway, we should leave the homosexuality issue at that, this is not a debate thread, and there's no point risking offending anyone when there is so little gain.
But all natural enitites have causes, could not have caused themselves, and are not self-necessary.
I'm saying that logically, because the original mover requires eternity and self-necessity, we cannot assume that this is a natural entity until proven otherwise.
Therefore until there is substantial evidence for this, it's more logical the assume that the world was caused by a Divine Being.
Anything that is self-necessary and eternal is not a natural entity. The difference between God and the singulairty is that the singularity has no intellect. The question then is whether the original mover requires intellect or not, but that's another debate.
I felt this was a pretty ignorant statement for a DHer to make. I also would have thought that if anything, non-religious anti-homosexuality arguments would gain more appreciation from neutrals because they stem from logic rather than faith.
You take things way too seriously. But go ahead, post them
Na not really, it's just that on an online board the lack of emotional expression makes it difficult to tell whether someone is joking or not.
I don't really want to start making anti-gay arguments in this thread, it will just bring chaos rather than any benefit.
However the premises are similar to the ones I used against the morality of abortion and contraception in one of the PG threads.
Pluvia
Hates Semicolons<br>;
No really post them, I want to see what they are.
Normally I would, but as the debaters know, I normally participate in about 3 debates at a time, and because I often post things conflicting with the views of others, I often have to counter 3 different people in each debate. After awhile it just becomes too much of a mental strain.
Also, my anti-homosexuality argument kind of ties in with premises of other moral arguments I have. It's just too much for a general discussion thread.
¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯
Smash Legend
I find it comforting to think that there's a higher power watching over me, so I'd say yes, I do believe in God.
I respect you dre but if I see you type "self-necessary" one more time on these boards you're done.
j/k
j/k
freeman123
Smash Lord
So we can talk about religion as long as no one disagrees? That's kind of boring. I think I'll pass, but thanks for demonstrating why having authority figures, whether they be gods or moderators, aren't always good things.
IAmBlu3
Smash Champion
lol it's not about disagreeing or agreeing. state your beliefs. that's cool. going back and forth, trying to disprove every statement and sentence made by someone is when i'ts not okay, at least for this particular thread. just move it to the debate hall and go crazy there. no ones abusing their power here. it's just not in the right section.
edit: then again......livvers did edit the post of that jesus picture.....and not the atheist one.....lol
edit: then again......livvers did edit the post of that jesus picture.....and not the atheist one.....lol
Melomaniacal
Smash Champion
Just like how I can condition and brainwash someone into being afraid of flowers.
Hell, millions of guys think that Twilight is cool because their girlfriends and the media have convinced them it is. People can be conditioned to think anything you want.
IAmBlu3
Smash Champion
i personally would like to see that
edit: i don't think everyone's beliefs should simply be described as them being conditioned. not saying you're saying that but it is kind of ambiguous. side note, twilight sucks. chick flick. chick flick with vampires and wolves. destined to fail. this ain't sisterhood of the traveling pants >__>
I wasn't talking about people's beliefs. I was talking about conditioning people to think what you want them to; like that they aren't gay, for example.
Agenie04991
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2007
- Messages
- 46
Whereas I do not personally believe in God, there are some things that really get you thinking...
That's it... That's all we are and (most likely) all we ever will be. Kinda depressing if there's nothing that makes that little speck important in the whole scheme of things.
PS, if you couldn't tell, that's earth as seen from just a wee bit outside of Pluto.
That's it... That's all we are and (most likely) all we ever will be. Kinda depressing if there's nothing that makes that little speck important in the whole scheme of things.
PS, if you couldn't tell, that's earth as seen from just a wee bit outside of Pluto.
jugfingers
Smash Champion
what does physical size in relation to the rest of the universe have to do with anything
I think that changing someone's sexual orientation isn't brainwashing.
Being gay isn't caused by a specific gene, but all sexual attraction is probably caused by 5-15 different genes.
(Discover; Jun2007 Special Issue, Vol. 28, p58-83, 7p, 6 color).
So a real change would actually be a shift in genetic material, and not in brain function. Someone's sexual appetite can be controlled with drugs that shut off hormone-releasing enzymes (and fruit, apparently), but they certainly can't change the general orientation of a person.
I also discovered from this article that the average hetero man is turned on by only heterosexual acts, but a hetero women is turned on by anything (hetero, homo, animal, etc.).
Being gay isn't caused by a specific gene, but all sexual attraction is probably caused by 5-15 different genes.
(Discover; Jun2007 Special Issue, Vol. 28, p58-83, 7p, 6 color).
So a real change would actually be a shift in genetic material, and not in brain function. Someone's sexual appetite can be controlled with drugs that shut off hormone-releasing enzymes (and fruit, apparently), but they certainly can't change the general orientation of a person.
I also discovered from this article that the average hetero man is turned on by only heterosexual acts, but a hetero women is turned on by anything (hetero, homo, animal, etc.).
Wrex
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 27
takes away the sense of importance that humanity might have when you realize just how mind boggling huge space really is, i guess
You can have a discussion and disagree.
"I believe in reincarnation"
"Why?"
"I mostly get it from my mom, I've had some experience with past life regressions as well"
"I've always found that stuff hard to believe. What makes you think it's real?"
"After trying it a few times, blah, blah, etc."
that's a simplified version of a conversation I had with a friend years ago. Even though we don't see eye to eye on spirituality and religion (she's now a scientologist) we still love and respect each other very much. That's usually lacking in these debates. Not that I expect you guys to love each other but you could be more respectful.
As was already mentioned you're never going to change anyone's mind in these debates anyways. I used to be a staunch Christian and nothing I ever usually read in similar threads made me change my mind because of the attachment I had to my faith and the opposing side was usually arguing some point that wasn't actually contradictory (as was also mentioned earlier). It wasn't until I was ready to let go of religion on my own that I changed my mind and it had nothing to do with what anyone else ever said to me.
But I'm sure that something like this has also already been said before and it makes me wonder what exactly I'm doing posting here.
He's stressing the fact that we as a species, and a planet for that matter, is so minuscule that it'd be quite egocentric of us to think we're as special as we make ourselves out to be.
If you really think about it, religious types should really ask themselves what they think their place is in the cosmic perspective of life.
I can never understand this. If the age of the earth was scaled down to a 24 hour scale, life has only been around for roughly 30 seconds... and out of the trillions of planets out there, I can never understand the position you're making. To me, it doesn't make sense. We're pretty insignificant, I guess that's the point I was trying to get across.
I thought the same thing when I was younger too actually. I guess it wasn't until I realized how well off I was, and how poor life was for other people, that I realized that there couldn't be something watching over us. It didn't feel right to me. Even if there was, I couldn't respect something like that.
Course, that was ages ago when I was 12 or 13. Before I got more familiar with how science worked. Now my reasons for being an atheist has grown quite a bit.
One's sexuality can largely be attributed to psychological reasons (not all the time though).
For example, many men who turn gay often lacked a male-role model in their childhood.
Also, lots of men who were abused by females when they were young (usually by a mother-figure) turn out to be sexually aroused by submitting to a dominant woman.
I'm not saying this applies to all homosexuals, so don't post saying 'well I'm gay and I had a male role-model etc'.
Again, people have changed their sexuality even in middle-age. As for gays converting to heterosexuals and Catholicism, it goes both ways, happily married men have turned gay after ten years of marriage, so there was no 'conditioning' there.
The reality is psychological influences often play a part in sexuality, so I don't really see where this 'gay gene' idea is coming from.
Also, just because you're born with a certain inclination doesn't mean it's morally permissible to practice it. That would justify sexual attraction to children and animals.
Even if there was a gay gene, that still would have no bearing on the morality of practicing homosexuality. Down Syndrome is a result of having an extra chromosone on the 21st pair of chromosones (hence the alternate name trisome 21), so just because something has genetic origins doesn't mean it's natural or right.
My opinion on homosexuality, or whether homsexuality is moral or not is not relevant to this post. The point of this post is to demonstrate that whether homosexuality is a choice, or whether genes have responsiiblity or not, has no relevance to the issue of whether it is moral or not.
In other words, it's pointless trying to prove it's genetic or not a choice, it's irrelevant.
I think it's best we stop commenting on homosexuality. As I said before, the Proom is not a good place to discuss delicate issues such as homosexuality, or issues such as religion which require some degree of study in the field before you can have any idea of what you're talking about.
For example, many men who turn gay often lacked a male-role model in their childhood.
Also, lots of men who were abused by females when they were young (usually by a mother-figure) turn out to be sexually aroused by submitting to a dominant woman.
I'm not saying this applies to all homosexuals, so don't post saying 'well I'm gay and I had a male role-model etc'.
Again, people have changed their sexuality even in middle-age. As for gays converting to heterosexuals and Catholicism, it goes both ways, happily married men have turned gay after ten years of marriage, so there was no 'conditioning' there.
The reality is psychological influences often play a part in sexuality, so I don't really see where this 'gay gene' idea is coming from.
Also, just because you're born with a certain inclination doesn't mean it's morally permissible to practice it. That would justify sexual attraction to children and animals.
Even if there was a gay gene, that still would have no bearing on the morality of practicing homosexuality. Down Syndrome is a result of having an extra chromosone on the 21st pair of chromosones (hence the alternate name trisome 21), so just because something has genetic origins doesn't mean it's natural or right.
My opinion on homosexuality, or whether homsexuality is moral or not is not relevant to this post. The point of this post is to demonstrate that whether homosexuality is a choice, or whether genes have responsiiblity or not, has no relevance to the issue of whether it is moral or not.
In other words, it's pointless trying to prove it's genetic or not a choice, it's irrelevant.
I think it's best we stop commenting on homosexuality. As I said before, the Proom is not a good place to discuss delicate issues such as homosexuality, or issues such as religion which require some degree of study in the field before you can have any idea of what you're talking about.
I'm not exactly sure what the theist response to this is, but I think some of them would say it's a sign of God's omnipotence and greatness. A perhaps more philosophical response could be that God has created the world so big that we never reach the end of space (because space is obviously finite). Again, I don't really know what the official theist responses are, just speculating.
Just for clarification, when I say theist, I'm talking about educated theists. I'm talking about theologians and religious philosophers, I'm not talking about any average Joe off the street who goes to Church every Sunday. It's usually the religious Average Joe's off the street who do the most damage to religion in debates because they don't really know what they're talking about.
This the problem of evil, and it's got it's own field in philosophy, that's how big the issue is. What I'm trying to say is you shouldn't make judgements on suffering until you've read both sides of the arguments.
Not saying that you are specifically, but it's always a tell-tale sign of an uneducated athiest when in a debate they say 'well if God exists why is there so much suffering?'. It shows they don't have much knowledge of philosophy of religion, because if they're asking a question like that it means they're expecting an answer in a few lines, when in reality it takes academics thousands of words to justify their opinions on this issue.
Pluvia
Hates Semicolons<br>;
Basically, faith.
1048576
Smash Master
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,417
[citation needed]
Here's one of my arguments against the Christian version of God, for what it's worth:
Evil exists
God is benevolent
God is omnipotent
These three statements cannot simultaneously be true. If the last two were true, then there is no possibility of evil. If God can get rid of evil but chooses not to, then God is evil. If God can't get rid of evil, but does want to, then he's not almighty.
Phantom7
Banned via Warnings
Being a Christian, I actually don't disagree with homosexuality. The only time homosexuality was mentioned in the Bible was in Leviticus, in a list of laws for priests. As long as homosexuals are not doing disgusting things like homosexual intercourse, it's not actually sin.
I'm going to refer to an earlier post for this:
EDIT:@Freeman123: I've decided to discontinue the debate we started, because I feel like it's going absolutely nowhere. You turn everything I say into a paradox, questioning the impossibility of the limits of time and space, telling me I can't believe in God even though I do, and comparing the evidence for God to evidence for dragons and phoenixes.
Also, in the way our universe works, lesser things originate from greater things. Here's a blatant example: You make a sandwhich for lunch. The sandwhich does not make you.
SuperBowser
Smash Lord
O no, no more gay discussion >: (.
Personally, I think god(s) exists. But I accept there's no proof. I don't think god cares whether we believe in them or not or what religion we choose to follow. My idea of god is pretty obscure. So I live my life the way I think is right rather than what a book or person tells me is right.
I'm probably in a miniscule minority with my beliefs though.
Personally, I think god(s) exists. But I accept there's no proof. I don't think god cares whether we believe in them or not or what religion we choose to follow. My idea of god is pretty obscure. So I live my life the way I think is right rather than what a book or person tells me is right.
I'm probably in a miniscule minority with my beliefs though.
Without reading the rest of the thread, I'm just going to throw out my opinion for people to analyze... I don't really want to stay and debate, but here's my belief:
There is no evidence currently that supports a reason to believe in a conscious omnipotent god. I was raised christian, but once i realized that there was nothing solid supporting the faith, I stopped believing. I realized that I was only really doing it because I was afraid of going to hell... I still consider myself a moral person, though. I follow the law, (for the most part.... but I mean, come on... we're kids, right?) I help others, and I don't lie or steal. I don't think that someone has to be religious to be morallly correct. These are two things that i think society confuses at times...
There is no evidence currently that supports a reason to believe in a conscious omnipotent god. I was raised christian, but once i realized that there was nothing solid supporting the faith, I stopped believing. I realized that I was only really doing it because I was afraid of going to hell... I still consider myself a moral person, though. I follow the law, (for the most part.... but I mean, come on... we're kids, right?) I help others, and I don't lie or steal. I don't think that someone has to be religious to be morallly correct. These are two things that i think society confuses at times...
I've just been checking my subscribed threads over the last few weeks, totally missed this.
I'm 20 and I'm Catholic. Always been religious but have been thinking about it much more recently and been more passionate about it last few months. Joined a Christian society at uni, been evangelising and just thinking about it more in general. Definitely gotten closer to God in that time and just generally more comfortable as a person.
As far as believing, Aquinas' arguments always made sense to me.
Glad to see this thread alive, even though I didn't read the whole thread.
Hope everyone that celebrates it is having a productive and peaceful Lent.
I'm 20 and I'm Catholic. Always been religious but have been thinking about it much more recently and been more passionate about it last few months. Joined a Christian society at uni, been evangelising and just thinking about it more in general. Definitely gotten closer to God in that time and just generally more comfortable as a person.
As far as believing, Aquinas' arguments always made sense to me.
Glad to see this thread alive, even though I didn't read the whole thread.
Hope everyone that celebrates it is having a productive and peaceful Lent.
This again.
I edited out the Jesus one because that was honestly offensive and poking fun at a serious belief and event for many people. The atheist one is just a joke about how Atheism ruins civilization when that clearly isn't true.
PS. Anymore gay talk gets this thread closed. Thread is about religion, not whether homosexuality is a choice or caused by genes or whatever.
- Status