AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

4668 1487609
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,150 posts
Peasant

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

  • 4,668 Replies
Sssssnnaakke
offline
Sssssnnaakke
1,036 posts
Scribe

So what are the rules and regulations that says you will burn in hell?

vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

For every other religion, their holy text is as close to the word of God as it comes.
Neither of them had one God that was with men in visible form. Either that God only sent words, or there was more than one God, like in Hinduism.
For the interpretations, well, the 40,000 variations of Christianity speak for themselves.
You talk numbers, so I can do the same. There is more than one billion Catholics, that's about the same as the total of other denominations combined. This means, we have about 50% voices supporting the truth of Church Tradition along with Catholics' interpretation of the Bible, including, as I have argued today IRL, the entirety of Marian devotion (Orthodox brothers like her too, and also pray for her intercession, though they didn't yet accept the dogma of "immaculate conception of Virgin Mary&quot, the limitations and ordination of priests, celibate, and many more.
How do you breathe? How do you move your arm? Derp.
You equalize moving one's arm and feeling love to someone else? Weird at the very least.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

It's not a good deed for a moderator to pervert words. I don't tolerate trolling authorities.


One fundamental part of Christianity, and other religions, is faith. Let me not see that everything doesn't matter in life besides your faith and, in the end, getting to heaven, again.

Misinterpretation does not do you any good too Freakenstein.


Because Charles Darwin was a Christian, Vesperbot, he felt that the theories of Evolution weren't any more merit than it already is. We do not judge people's motivations for their past affiliations, because that is a form of ad hominem. You should really read up on the different kinds.

Can you sense love with your brain?


Every sense is controlled with your brain and, naturally, once you die, it rots away, not being able to perceive again. Here, Christianity believes that once you die, your soul goes off to whichever domain you are forced to wander, whether it be Heaven or Hell. Good for them, because they would perceive neither!
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

One fundamental part of Christianity, and other religions, is faith. Let me not see that everything doesn't matter in life besides your faith and, in the end, getting to heaven, again.
Did you read this topic whole? You can see some answers in there.
Every sense is controlled with your brain and, naturally, once you die, it rots away, not being able to perceive again. Here, Christianity believes that once you die, your soul goes off to whichever domain you are forced to wander, whether it be Heaven or Hell. Good for them, because they would perceive neither!
I wonder what would you say about NDEs, and Gloria Polo's testimonial in particular (as someone here claimed it as a &quoture" NDE)? Also, souls do feel, in a different way than the brain's nervous signals of any sort, the soul feels a lot even while the body is just a single cell.
Because Charles Darwin was a Christian, Vesperbot, he felt that the theories of Evolution weren't any more merit than it already is.
Well, it seems he missed that time, but because evolution theory is applied to the world, it becomes another means of understanding how great is God who made all of this.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

How?

Here's a little thing that could help.

And people, any argument against the remainder of my post? Or is it all true and unable to be argued?

Yep. Can you prove it was made by God?

Neither of them had one God that was with men in visible form. Either that God only sent words, or there was more than one God, like in Hinduism.

Prove that Jesus was actually there and not a guy who done something like this.

You equalize moving one's arm and feeling love to someone else? Weird at the very least.

Not really weird. The brain calls what actions should be made, the body is what executes the actions.
It makes sense.

Good for them, because they would perceive neither!

Bad for me, realistically - I wish the idea of Heaven / Hell was true but sadly there's nothing backing it up. I don't think people understand that some Atheists - such as I, kind of do wish their was something beyond what we already see, but being as we actually cannot see it, ironically, we should not believe in it.

Do I wish I could live eternally? Yep.
Would I sacrifice what I know and my logical mindset in the hopes of doing that? No - that wouldn't even be me who would be living then.

Did you read this topic whole?

Because 262 pages is worth looking into, especially when some parts of it can easily be flame fests from obsessed Christians or (I may have been a part of this) angered Atheists.

Also, souls do feel, in a different way than the brain's nervous signals of any sort, the soul feels a lot even while the body is just a single cell.

Okay, prove a soul is real, please.

Well, it seems he missed that time, but because evolution theory is applied to the world, it becomes another means of understanding how great is God who made all of this.

If God is real - again, prove this.

Oh wait. I remember what those 262 pages of Christianity FTW was about! This exact same thing!

- H
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

Near-Death Experiences? They are all visions perceived by the brain. The very thought that near-death experiences are proof of an afterlife is sheer poppycock. One theory about it is that people experience the brain performing a scan of its memories to find an experience to use it as a coping mechanism for the actual death itself. It could be stress from something near-fatal, drugs elevating the cause, etc.

Also, souls do feel, in a different way than the brain's nervous signals of any sort, the soul feels a lot even while the body is just a single cell.


Prove it. The burden's on you.

Well, it seems he missed that time, but because evolution theory is applied to the world, it becomes another means of understanding how great is God who made all of this.


God is not applicable in Evolution, because Evolution is self-circulatory. There doesn't need to be a god to start it, nor does there need to be a god to refresh it.
Sssssnnaakke
offline
Sssssnnaakke
1,036 posts
Scribe

It could be stress from something near-fatal, drugs elevating the cause, etc.

Exactly I mean ever hear of an Atheist having a near death experience that has seen God?
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

There doesn't need to be a god to start it, nor does there need to be a god to refresh it.


There could be one, though.
As for starting it, doesn't it require some boost? Like abiogenesis/God/Us being space aliens/etc?
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

There could be one, though.


The mundane cannot be used to fully debunk the supernatural anyway, just like how it is vice-versa. We can only present evidence, and data to back it up, to present the other side as "highly unlikely".

As for starting it, doesn't it require some boost? Like abiogenesis/God/Us being space aliens/etc?


Abiogenesis is the leading theory as to how life started, yes. Space aliens is also another theory (one that is very hard to back up), but come on, that's too easy of a way out!
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

Exactly I mean ever hear of an Atheist having a near death experience that has seen God?

I've only heard of a religious hallucination once before. And that was on House.
For the short answer: No. :P

There could be one, though.

No need for him and no proof for him.

As for starting it, doesn't it require some boost? Like abiogenesis/God/Us being space aliens/etc?

Abiogenesis has proved the most logical in comparison to everything else we know. As does the Big Bang. This is the main reason for the debate - we find this as the most logical choice (at least I do - I speak for myself on this).

- H
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

Can you prove it was made by God?
"It" - you mean the Bible? Well, the proof I used to base my belief on is based on my personal experience of God's love, and on a handful of others' personal experiences where people received information from God about their neighbors while not meeting them prior to that, with the detalization unachievable even with indirect contact, which (the information) was then publicly proven by those neighbors. MGW gave me some info that such a proof is only personal-related and cannot be accepted "objectively". Still, if God was able to provide the necessary info, and in all cases it was true, then it's most likely (rationally speaking, a believer says "true" instead) that God does care for us, which supports the Bible's words of Jesus in Jn 13-15 and other places. This in turn makes it most likely that other words of Jesus are also true.
Not really weird. The brain calls what actions should be made, the body is what executes the actions.
It makes sense.
If so, you're speaking about passion or lust instead of love, which are indeed bodily emotions.
Okay, prove a soul is real, please.
I expect this to be easier than proving God (which is impossible, if using binary logic, and we agreed here with the only person who wished to speak at that level of abstraction), but still hard enough to provide direct proof out of the box. So far I'm sticking with love, because true love exceeds emotions, and while emotions do indeed depend on neurotransmitters and stuff described in the video (watched first quarter of it, and can say it's a nice piece of science), they cannot substitute love, they produce obsession instead.
Bad for me, realistically - I wish the idea of Heaven / Hell was true but sadly there's nothing backing it up. I don't think people understand that some Atheists - such as I, kind of do wish their was something beyond what we already see, but being as we actually cannot see it, ironically, we should not believe in it.
Hmm... there was a parable I have heard recently. If there is nothing beyond death, then life is like a teacher who attends to exams. Students do what they usually do at exams, some studied hard and write freely, some studied with troubles and do mistakes, some cheat off neighbors, etc etc. But in the end the teacher collects all the exam papers and throws them all into the furnace without reading them, and the students got thrown there shortly afterwards. Isn't this illogical?
The very thought that near-death experiences are proof of an afterlife is sheer poppycock.
If, by any means, you recover from an NDE, and find out that you know something about someone else which appears true afterwards, and is complicated enough to not be a blind guess, does it still remain &quotoppycock"?
God is not applicable in Evolution, because Evolution is self-circulatory. There doesn't need to be a god to start it, nor does there need to be a god to refresh it.
Prove this.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

There doesn't need to be a god to start it


evolution theory isn't about the start of life at all.
whit evolution you always start whit something alrdy living.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

on is based on my personal experience of God's love

Which I highly doubt you can prove. Unless it is physically impossible to do otherwise then I'll call it the chances going your way.

where people received information from God about their neighbors while not meeting them prior to that, with the detalization unachievable even with indirect contact, which (the information) was then publicly proven by those neighbors

What?

MGW gave me some info that such a proof is only personal-related and cannot be accepted "objectively".

In my opinion, if it isn't objectively God, then it isn't proof. If you saw it with your own eyes but cannot prove it to others then that's fine - but understand that people will disagree when you can't prove it.

Still, if God was able to provide the necessary info, and in all cases it was true, then it's most likely (rationally speaking, a believer says "true" instead) that God does care for us, which supports the Bible's words of Jesus in Jn 13-15 and other places. This in turn makes it most likely that other words of Jesus are also true.

I mostly lost track of what you was talking about but you used biblical references and 2 religious figures to back up an argument intended to prove them.
It's like explaining what a word means by using said word.

Isn't this illogical?

Life isn't logical, the attempt to make it look like a bad point by pointing that out is silly, and the parable itself isn't exactly very helpful when you put it into terms that are actually in life itself.

Is the irrationality you gain when your thoughts for survival kick in logical? Nope. Does "surviving" sound logical to us? Definitely - but even so, that is our instinct, when you think about it, the meaning of life is devoid (which is why I believe that the meaning of life is what you make of it), and thus (as mentioned in the video) the contradictions between the meaning of life and being here, etc, dredge up religion.

If so, you're speaking about passion or lust instead of love, which are indeed bodily emotions.

No, I'm talking about love as well. Passion if anything is the same thing - just that a lot of people perceive it incorrectly. Passion is the love or intense feel for something, and is often used in debates like IdrA raging on Starcraft II - he has such passion for it that of course he'll be angry when he loses.
Passion is essentially the same for a loved one.

And even if it were not, we can feel love and thus the brain is capable of generating such a feeling, the same way it does every other emotion (as we perceive them).

If, by any means, you recover from an NDE, and find out that you know something about someone else which appears true afterwards, and is complicated enough to not be a blind guess, does it still remain &quotoppycock"?

I could've sworn I've had deja vu on very complex matters (or rather the DETAIL of things) and I do not place this in a "God". Hell, I used to have the same dreams as a some few people which was... amazingly strange.

Again, it could be something as simple as chance to a very inadvertant and passive interpretation that your mind has processed.

Do I ACTUALLY know? I can't say I can, but even so you've not proved God and it's childish to say he did it when you can't prove he's real.
We call that Greek Mythology - if the volcano near Themalae's Village went off, obviously Hades was pissed off (or he just wanted some new guests).
Do I even need to have a REAL village name? No, it's fiction.

Prove this.

Whilst I could argue that this argument is already more logical than yours (because let's be fair - it is), I'd like to throw out that you'd be doing everyone a favor if you learnt of this yourself. Relying on us for such info does show (to me at least) that you're unwilling to accept this side of the debate and truthfully I don't know the specifics. Which is why I'm going to throw this out there as hopefully a first step towards that.

- H
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

Still, if God was able to provide the necessary info, and in all cases it was true, then it's most likely (rationally speaking, a believer says "true" instead) that God does care for us, which supports the Bible's words of Jesus in Jn 13-15 and other places. This in turn makes it most likely that other words of Jesus are also true.


And said necessary info and words of the Bible was reviewed by objective demographics and has data to back it up besides personal testimony? No?

So far I'm sticking with love, because true love exceeds emotions, and while emotions do indeed depend on neurotransmitters and stuff described in the video (watched first quarter of it, and can say it's a nice piece of science), they cannot substitute love, they produce obsession instead.


It's too bad that the emotion of love cannot be created without a brain to perceive the stimuli needed to produce it.

If, by any means, you recover from an NDE, and find out that you know something about someone else which appears true afterwards, and is complicated enough to not be a blind guess, does it still remain &quotoppycock"?


Vesperbot, we can claim we can see anything, and yet it has to be proven to be true. Appearing true and proven to be true are two different things. A person's NDE cannot be proven because no one else can perceive the same exact replica. Both sides cannot say that a person's NDE came directly from God (though that would be sheer chickening out). We can only come up with the processes that led up to the NDE, physiologically.

Prove this.


Let's start with the ancient earth ~4.7 billion years ago. Many different compounds were around back then, such as hydrogen cyanide and methane gas. DNA comes from 4 nucleotides. Where did these come from? In 1964,researcher Wan Oro put methane and the cyanide to boil in a solution under the perfect conditions that were in ancient earth back then. The solution produced adenine, one of the four types of nucleotide bases, over time. A full nucleotide, however, needs to gain a sugar called ribose and a group of phosphates. Well, once the nucleotide was formed, they needed to form together in a term called polynucleotides. Montmorillonite, a very abundant resource in ancient earth, could speed up this process of chaining. It is highly likely that a great deal of the chaining was started anywhere montmorillonite was. The polynucleotides with ribonucleic acid are able to make copies of themselves. Some copies weren't perfect enough to survive, but other copies were much better suited to the hot, dense planet that was so young, so they survived. So these molecules that did survive would replicate, while the ill-suited copies broke off. As RNA replicated, they shared their surroundings with other chemicals around them. These chemicals were lipids, chemicals that like to clump together. The lipids could do this with RNA to form circular bodies called micelles. These RNA molecules that attracted the micelles were protected against the harsh environment. Because they were protected, they better survived than those that didn't. From there, they replicated successfully, but with the entire protocell with them. There, you have the first primitive cellular structure. Then over a long period of time, RNA grew more complex from replicating and passing on better traits. The single strand transitioned to create a double-strand molecule, and the more successful DNA molecule formed. DNA needs proteins. Experiments with the montmorillonite produced amino acids and long chains of them called &quotolypeptides". The clay montmorillonite is a breeding ground for these chemicals.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

@Freakenstein
That was a nice write for the last part of your post there, but in all fairness, can you prove that these molecules that essentially created life were real? That it isn't the "unobtainium" of Avatar? XD

- H

Showing 2581-2595 of 4668