Prayer Banned by Judge, but not by students

[TMLutas]

OK, I'll bite, why do you want to limit the influence of christianity?

Because it is starting to look like some laws are being passed to enforce Christian views on ethics with the reasoning of 'its in the Bible'.

Now, because we are a Western nation, and Western nations are ultimatly Christian nations of one kind or another, I understand that a good portion of the populace basically has the same ethics and morality that's in the bible, simply because of the Christian influence over the years.

However... I don't feel that any law that has the reasoning of 'its in the bible' has any place in civil law because we are not soley a Christian nation, we have other religions as well as non-Western cultures. Hence, a Seperation of Church and State doesn't just apply to Christianity - it would apply to Wicca, as well, either way you decide to interpret it.

For instance, I've yet to hear a single arguement that isn't backed by the bible or religion against Homosexuality...

There really isn't much debate over homosexuality these days outside of the legalization of homosexual marriage.

If you haven't heard non-christian arguments against legalizing homosexual marriage, you really haven't been paying attention much. Try <a href="http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog.php">IMAPP</a> for a pretty good mapping of the current marriage debate.

If you don't look very hard, you can avoid finding the non-biblical reasons for just about any "christian legislation" proposed but those reasons are out there. Widen your reading and you'll find them.

[TMLutas]

I was just expanding out the general shorthand that religions that would have good civil reasons to be excluded aren't going to go in the rotation. A suicide cult would probably be difficult to pick out based on historical case studies but it would be a legitimate reason to disfavor a religion because it's promoting crime.

But again, how can you determine what a suicide cult is?

"Sorry, you can't lead the benediction, because you come from a suicide cult."

"Really? How can you tell?"

"....."

If <a href="http://www.vhemt.org/">VHEMT</a> were a church instead of secular, that would be pretty obvious. I'm not saying it would be easy or this particular clause would be used very often but that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea. I think we've had maybe three 3rd amendment cases in the history of the US republic. That doesn't mean that the 3rd amendment was a bad idea.

[TMLutas]

until a perfect and stable society does evolve (note the society needs to evolve, not the organisms within it) we will always have a need to create a new generation, and as far as I can see it takes a male and a female to produce that next generation.

I may be pointing out the painfully obvious, but right now the world is not suffering from an under-population crisis.

Experts estimate world population will peak somewhere around 9 billion and then begin gradually decreasing. By the time it gets down to what I would consider a reasonable and comfortably sustainable level, we'll probably have left sexual reproduction behind anyhow, it'll be obsolete.

Take a look at a map of frontier counties before you get so sure that we're not facing a problem...

[Shyal_malkes]

if I have to make a choice between being wrong but enjoying my life thinking that I'm right and believing that no matter what I do it won't change how things will end up anyway (screwed as you put it) I think I'd choose to be wrong but enjoy it anyway. just to not believe in something totally bleak.

I just don't see the "totally bleak" outcome that bothers you so much. So the universe is going to end someday. . . Is that so bad? It's billions of years in the future. There is plenty of time for our civilization (and millions of others) to achieve anything and everything that we could ever possibly dream of.

maybe it's because I don't believe that the world is so bleak. maybe because if I ever became Athiest you would have what I would hope was the single angriest person in the world! maybe it's because due to the bleak and pointless end it really makes what we do here and now quite arpitrary which means that in the end it all boils down to "since it doesn't matter anyway I can kill whomever I so please and it doesn't matter, I don't have to follow any rules whatsoever because we're all going to die in the end"

yes, I can really see how that wouldn't be a snag in turning to athiesm.

In fact, if I were not an atheist, I might be tempted to use this as an example of God's infinite mercy.

I guess that depends on your point of view.

Personally, I find far more depressing the evangelicals who believe we live in the "end times" and that Judgement Day is right around the corner. Our adventure in this world has barely begun, I don't want to see it cut short so soon.

and nobody has managed to disprove it's inevitability yet. (without putting God into the picture)

Well, there's another point. We don't know for sure that the universe is going to end at all. The currently popular view among cosmologists is that entropy will cause everything to wind down eventually, but they don't know for sure. There are still supporters of the steady state hypothesis. I was just reading about a new hypothesis that Big Bangs may recur on regular intervals, creating one universe after another.

This is a subject cosmologists argue over -- a lot!

so much debate, and yet the don't show where the energy of the big bang is coming from, nor for what is on top order or chaos. which is the other half of my point.

if infinity is out there, then in theory it always was out there. to assume other wise is to assume that time revolves around us. which means that there is by now something uber powerfull and knowing. (aka, God) which if nothing else would have evolved already.

so, on one edge of this blade, we have a bleak and pointless existance, and on the other edge, we have something that suggests the existance of either a supreme being, or (if you want to push it) at least a supreme set of rules that must be obeyed beyone all others (I mean think about it, with fision and fusion we can technically turn lead into gold, not that it does us much good but it is possible)

my only real beef (And reason for engaging in this rather detracting debate) with atheism is how as a near consistancy I feel like atheists look down on me and want to make fun of me for what I believe.

I've been made fun of ALL MY LIFE and I am (dare I use an overused phrase) sick and tired of being looked down on, spit on, laughed at, and otherwise ridiculed all over what I believe and how I live my life?! that is my business and anyone who believes in the constitution enough to support the "all men are created equal" part cannot in the same swing start making fun of or looking down upon another person.

you think you've found your calling in life. fine, good for you. leave me to mine because I'm happy with it. and if that is the purpose of religion then it is probably necessary to have more then one just to keep everyone happy at the same time.

[Shyal_malkes]

I'm tired of being angry and I don't like it. if not for people's responces I'd delete my earlier posts for how angry they sound.

so unless someone really wants to talk (not debate) on the topic I'm gonna drop the topic.

[Narnian]

Religion is essentially a child-like view of the universe.

Children want to believe that there is justice in the world. That the grown ups make everything right. Religion in essence is adults trying to believe in a higher justice to comfort them that in the end, everything works out. That even if you do evil in this life, in the afterlife there will be justice. That there is a Big Parent Up There that will in the end deal with the naughty boys and girls.

I would half-way agree with you here - but a simple faith is not a simplistic faith. We are created in the image of God (male and female). Do we project this onto God as our concept or is the reverse true - we are constructed into families because the Trinitarian God is essentially a family? I go with the later.

The problem is, from my viewpoint, there isn't a Big Parent Up There that will make everything right. It's up to us. There's no point in being miserable in our lives hoping for an eternity of bliss that isn't there. Instead of patiently waiting to go to Heaven, we need to do our best to make this world we live in a Heaven instead. Instead of hoping for justice in the next world, we need to focus on making justice in this world.

You have set up a strawman here - there is more charitable work done on this earth to relieve poverty and support justice by religious organizations than you seem to want to give credit for. Learn the history of William Wilberforce (one of my heroes - ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce and others. My wife used to work for Chuck Colson at Prison Fellowship and the work they did to help prisoners and their families (in the US and abroad)was incredible. I have met many men and women (non-Christians included) who's condition in prison (and often their families) was greatly helped by Prison Fellowship.

Christianity has elements that I find particularly unpleasant. The concept of Original Sin being one of them, especially with the misogynist undertones laying the blame on women for it. I am not my parents, I fail to see if a pair of ultimate ancestors did something bad, why every generation after that is cursed. That does not fall under any conception of justice that I care to think of, especially when God is supposed to be merciful.

Why do you do bad things? I am going to assume you have lied, cheated and stolen at some time in your life (maybe worse) - because I know I have (and too often continue to do so) and I believe everybody does. It is part of our nature to be selfish and self-centered - the taint of Original Sin. Do you have kids? If not talk to me after you have some - you'd be surprised how many parents understand (and accept) the concept better.

As you can see from my signature I believe Original Sin is actually a very comforting doctrine as it explains why everybody isn't perfect. It gives me room to make allowances for others (and hopefully others to make allowances for me).

It also explains the existance of incipient evil in the world.

I also find the idea of eternal damnation, a concept in many if not most brands of Christianity to be a concept of ultimate sadism and pointlessness. Is there no possibility for redemption in the afterlife? Why is choice only given to those who live? Why wouldn't a truly merciful God allow those in Hell a chance to repent? Saying that those in Hell are incapable of repentance begs the question of why those in life are. According to my understanding of Christianity, the flesh is less important than the soul, so why should whether or not the flesh is dead or alive make a difference in the soul's ability to repent and choose God?

That is why there is evangelism - to let people know there are options. Actually we do not know if there is a second chance - the creeds do say that Jesus descended into Hell and some believe it was a second chance. C.S. Lewis wrote a story about that concept called "The Great Divorce".

As for the flesh being less important that is far from historic orthodox Christianity. That is a gnostic concept that flesh and the physical world is evil that the early church fought against (but it keeps rearing it's ugly head, sometimes within the church). When God created everything He said it was good but when He got to man he said it was VERY good. And this is in the flesh. Sex is good, God told us to run off and have fun

The whole idea of the resurrection is we will have permanent bodies, not just be spirit beings. And we will not be floating around heaven but God is going to recreate the earth - that is where we will be. In the flesh, having fun.

I prefer the reincarnation faiths. At least those make some sense. You don't get punished forever, just a lifetime. Admittedly, there are other issues with that one, including the "justice in the next life, not in this one" syndrome but it makes a lot more sense than the concept of eternal damnation.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me

[Shyal_malkes]

I have heard that damnation in it's strictest sense is merely the stopping of progress (it's an english word I think that for more reason then one sounds like those things we use to stop rivers to make lakes and stuff)

in that regard, if one dies and goes somewhere, the where they go is determined by who they are and what decisions they make. that is why this life is the test and the training ground. because the answers aren't all there before us constantly, that would be too easy. instead we have to make our own choices and decide for ourselves who and what we are.

after death the choices we made determine where we go because we will still be making them. think about it, if we are still existing after death (a large assumption I know but bear with me) that means that we still make choices. those choices determine where we go.

and I don't know who but someone mentioned that Hell is merely outside of the presence of God. it doesn't say that there are different parts to Heaven or Hell, but it doesn't say that those are the only options (actually according to mormon beliefs one part of the Holy Bible if interpreted our way indicates just this, that there are layers to these two places)

I guess even athiests have to agree that what someone does will be (after that person dies) what that person did which will determine how they are viewed by those who come after. there are those revered and then there are those shunned, (and then there are those that we'd like to forget but can't anyway) so even in athiesm there is a kind of afterlife.


personally I don't belive in origional sin. I believe that those who are too young to know what sin is or what right from wrong is are held blameless. I believe that we are accountable for only our own thoughts words and deeds. yes while it may have brought us all to live here, I don't see this place as all that bad considering what it could have been...

...and with my imagination, that could have been a very place indeed.

[Tom Mazanec]

We will always need religion. Because we will always die. I believe that we will "cure" aging (though I only have a slim hope of living to see it) but we will die through mischance, "memory overflow", the end of the universe's life-sustaining Era, or SOMETHING.
I don't know when you will die, but you will die.

[Reignbow]

Tom has it right here - life is and will always be 100% fatal. Eternal life in this universe is not going to happen - everything we know about biology, physics and everyday life points against it. What happens after death is a great deal of what religion is all about - basically you can divide religion into "where did this come from", "what should I do here" and "where do I go afterwards", tied together in some way by divine beings.

The various strains of atheism/agnosticism that want to do without religion have to provide answers to these three questions on their own. The question of origin is a scientific one - if you deny divine beings, you'll have to put your faith into evolution, big bang or some successor theory. The question of behaviour during life is much less definite, but existentialism, nihilism and humanism (as well as others) have tried to answer it. What happens after death, however, is one question where rationalist flounder for obvious reasons: Zero information. Maybe we will know more if we ever come to understand how life and sentience really come about - death can be defined as the moment of extinction of either one, so studying the moment of their conception might be revealing.

Barring such momentous scientific advances (for that's what it would be), there's mostly the materialist answer: Nothing. Game over. That is usually considered depressing, if not fatalistic to the point of depravity. However, some friends and I recently came to a realization while discussing this issue: Cessation of existence may be our salvation from the weight of eternity. Our minds can deal with time spans of decades, maybe millenia, but I think that we can no more grasp a million years than we can grasp a light year, and that trying to live forever would be a one-way ticket to insanity. On the danger of sounding truist: Eternity is a very long time. Infinitely longer than any finite time span in fact. It's pretty much guaranteed to overtax our mental constitutions. Thus the non-existence of an afterlife may actually be better news than it sounds at first hearing.

Nevertheless, there will always be religion. The main reason for this are not the questions of afterlife and origin (especially not the latter), but the question of right and wrong during life. Many believers take comfort in the fact that there is someone better and greater than any of them out there, a higher instance that can be trusted when all that humans have wrought fails. Atheists tend to think that sentient beings such as us are alone in the universe and thus sole masters (and solely responsible). That's both empowering and very, very scary. We are fallible - eminently so. If we are alone, we're in for a wild ride.

[Maxgoof]

For me, religion is simply a satisfying answer to the question, "Why am I me?" The simple fact of self-awareness that no science can explain is enough reason for me to believe in God.

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


One concept of eternity that has been theorised for a Biblical interpretation is that eternity, as it is referred to in the Bible, is not so much infinite time, but an a-temporal state of existence: a place where time does not exist, which by definition would not exist in this universe.

I.e., Heaven is not in this physical universe.

Since we're also freed from our carbon-based brain (and will be given new bodies), we'll be well equipped to handle the logistics of such a place.

And the Angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up His hand to heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever, Who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Revelation 10:5-7

A bit of a stretch, I know, but then I'd have to add the testimonies of people who actually visited Heaven, but those will probably be received with a LOT of skepticism in this forum.


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[Zobeid]

so, on one edge of this blade, we have a bleak and pointless existance, and on the other edge, we have something that suggests the existance of either a supreme being, or (if you want to push it) at least a supreme set of rules that must be obeyed beyone all others

I don't see the connection. I mean, you could have a bleak and pointless existence with a supreme being. How would His existence make ours less pointless, I wonder?

I've been made fun of ALL MY LIFE and I am (dare I use an overused phrase) sick and tired of being looked down on, spit on, laughed at, and otherwise ridiculed all over what I believe and how I live my life?!

This is one thing that continually amazes me about Christians -- or at least some vocal factions of them. No matter how large a majority they become (about 80% in the USA by some estimates), with churches seemingly on every other street corner, and all the dominance they have in so many parts of our society. . . They still somehow manage to portray themselves as the downtrodden, the underdogs, under siege by threats from all directions.

And when someone dares to question even the tiniest, most trivial symbol of Christian dominance (like "Under God" in the pledge), then they are immediately up in arms crying about how persecuted they are, everybody's out to get them, our country is going to Hell in a bucket, etc.

[Shyal_malkes]

well, at least being a christian has taught me to sympathise with others. (something I see you failing to do)

and you're missing the point entirely with my double bladed attack. the second part (thie infinite existance part) absolutely disproves athiesm by the suggestion that if the universe has existed forever and just gone through a series of 'big bangs' then something would have enventually evolved into a near godlike status. thus showing that god evolved and thus disproving athiesm using athiestic rules

I do not consider this a very serious argument (though I know you're gonna blow it out of proportions). what I consider serious is your absolutely missing the point entirely. unless you're doing it on purpose which is even worse.

[Zobeid]

That is the journey, to find the truth. Is there a God and what is this being like? What is our relationship with this being? How should we then live in light of this knowledge? Just because people disagree doesn't mean they are all wrong.

But it's not a search for truth. This is one of my main objections to the established, organized religions -- their dogma. You already have absolute truth, in the form of The Bible. It can't be tested. It can't be questioned. It can't be revised. It can't be amended. Anything not in it is assumed to be either false or unimportant. There is no room for anyone to search for any further truth beyond its covers.

Just look at how long it took the Catholic Church to come to grips with Galileo. But this is not new, and it's not limited to Christianity. Socrates was executed for questioning the existence of Athena and Zeus.

We actually have developed a pretty good scheme for seeking truth, it's called the scientific method. Science admits there's a lot we don't know -- important stuff, even. Science says, our ideas should be tested to prove or disprove them. Even our established beliefs should always be subject to re-examination or revision in the light of new evidence.

Look at the history of atheism and you will find as many diagreements over ethics and morals as within religion - that is part of human nature - we look to ourselves as the ultimate authority and want that to be the norm for everybody.

Here's an analogy. . . It's sort of like when the Chinese Communists look at US society and see chaos, factionalism, squabbling. But they don't realize it's healthy squabbling, it keeps us flexible. Like the willow, we bend in the wind instead of breaking.

If you take God out of the chain then it falls apart - you have no starting point, no first cause. In fact you mentioned God diectly or indirecly in each step so taking God out literally leaves nothing. If it didn't come from an outside source then the highest cout of appeal you have is the individual himself - then who has what right to tell anyone anything about their ethics or behaviour?

If I take God out of the chain, it doesn't leave much -- but a simple explanation is a good explanation. To wit: Societies invent their own code of ethics because they need one in order to function.

If you were dropped on a desert island, a thousand miles from anybody, then you would only need to answer to yourself. You would be in no position to help or harm anybody else, which makes at least 95% of ethics moot. Then nobody would have a right to tell you anything about your ethics or behavior. However, most of us have to live and get along with other people. We are part of a society that we have to answer to.

From your logic the Taliban has as much authority as our government. Upon what basis can you say they are wrong? I have a foundation I can argue with them but to what can you appeal as having a higher authority than them?

We have something in this country called democracy, remember? And we have something called civil rights. Democracy isn't perfect (Churchill called it the worst form of government -- except for all the others!), but it does usually keep the government from wandering too far away from the values of the people, or what they're willing to tolerate at least.

Without God ethics and law essentially become whatever who has the biggest gun says it is.

With God ethics is merely an exercise in circular logic, a snake eating its own tail.

[Reignbow]

One concept of eternity that has been theorised for a Biblical interpretation is that eternity, as it is referred to in the Bible, is not so much infinite time, but an a-temporal state of existence: a place where time does not exist, which by definition would not exist in this universe.

I.e., Heaven is not in this physical universe.

Since we're also freed from our carbon-based brain (and will be given new bodies), we'll be well equipped to handle the logistics of such a place.

And the Angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up His hand to heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever, Who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Revelation 10:5-7

A bit of a stretch, I know, but then I'd have to add the testimonies of people who actually visited Heaven, but those will probably be received with a LOT of skepticism in this forum.

That is extremely interesting, and not half as whacky as you might think. For the reasons I laid out in my last post, I'm hesitant to consider eternal life something desirable. Timeless existence would be something else entirely. This ties nicely into some recent speculations by physicists on the nature of time. One of the more daring theories is that time does not, in fact, pass; it merely IS. Our perception that only the present is real and active could be very misleading. Paul Davies published an interesting article in Scientific American a while ago; I managed to find a Google Cache version of it (text-only, sorry). Before you decry this as too ludicrous, remember that gravity lenses, looped dimensions and vacuum energy are standard fare of modern physics. It may not be right, but I don't want to be the doubting Thomas when half our modern technology runs on theories that sound like total nutjobs thought them up on an acid trip.
Google Cache of Davies' article

*****

and you're missing the point entirely with my double bladed attack. the second part (thie infinite existance part) absolutely disproves athiesm by the suggestion that if the universe has existed forever and just gone through a series of 'big bangs' then something would have enventually evolved into a near godlike status. thus showing that god evolved and thus disproving athiesm using athiestic rules

Well, firstly our candidates for divinity would have to survive a big bang to carry over into the next cycle; but if there is an indication that something happened before the last big bang, then something did obviously come through, even if it's only heat. So I'll let that stand.

The assertion however, that evolution can produce near-godlike beings when given enough time (and MUST do so, according to your argument), is faulty. Nothing evolution can produce can bend the laws of physics. Awesome technology, sure. Mastery of all they survey, no problem. Overcoming of the speed of light, energy conservation and decrease of entropy... how should that be possible? Omnipotence means a lot more than making it rain when you want to and turning the seas red. It means teleporting galaxies, governing all living beings justly and making weekday-morning television not suck - I submit that this is not possible with any degree of technological or biological development. Also, evolution works not for the benefit of civilizations or for awesome superpowers; it works as a replication mechanism for genes or similar units. As our candidates increase their powers, selection pressures will fall and evolution will drop towards undirected mutation. I suspect that evolution would cease to be a major development factor long before a population even approaches divinity.

Apart from all counterarguments: If you resolve a centuries-old argument to your benefit within five lines, you've probably cut some corners.

*******

For me, religion is simply a satisfying answer to the question, "Why am I me?"

Well, obviously, nobody else could possibly be cool enough to be glorious ME. Don't you think so, too?

[Shyal_malkes]

You already have absolute truth, in the form of The Bible. It can't be tested. It can't be questioned. It can't be revised. It can't be amended. Anything not in it is assumed to be either false or unimportant. There is no room for anyone to search for any further truth beyond its covers.

your words betray you. you did once believe, didn't you. otherwise you wouldn't be falling into the trap that so many others have. you don't believe in the bible and yet you presume to still interpret it in the same way many christians do.

I believe that there is a lot of truth that the bible does not contain, for two reasons. either 1)it was unimportant or 2)it was subjected to man's folly durring transport storage and translation. did you know that in some of the earlier organizations of the bible the book of revelations wasn't even included therein?

We actually have developed a pretty good scheme for seeking truth, it's called the scientific method. Science admits there's a lot we don't know -- important stuff, even. Science says, our ideas should be tested to prove or disprove them. Even our established beliefs should always be subject to re-examination or revision in the light of new evidence

and yet the scientific methode is so unstable for understanding the universe on a whole. think of it we believe in things through science as absurd as photons and electrons and theorize over gravitons, how long will it be before we realize that these things are actually made up and are in fact blah blah blah.
every new scientific discovery not only builds our knowledge (as most athiests never fail to point out) but also destroys years of previous scientific assumptions (which most athiests never seem to remember)

We have something in this country called democracy, remember? And we have something called civil rights. Democracy isn't perfect (Churchill called it the worst form of government -- except for all the others!), but it does usually keep the government from wandering too far away from the values of the people, or what they're willing to tolerate at least.

democracy, civil rights, tollerance? last I checked these were ideals foreign to athiesm. athiesm (being bleak after all) means that I can do anything the laws of physics allows me to do and the rest of you can die for all those laws care. there is no democracy, no civil rights, no tollerance no morals no scrupals, no laws concerning people anywhere in athiesm as I see it. (because you haven't refuted the bleakness yet)

The assertion however, that evolution can produce near-godlike beings when given enough time (and MUST do so, according to your argument), is faulty. Nothing evolution can produce can bend the laws of physics

break, no. they cannot break the laws of physics. however knowing the laws better then we do would allow them (him, her?) to do stuff that to us appears as though they are doing just that, one of my favorite TOTQ quotes is "impossable just means you don't know how they do it yet"

and the evolution of science and technology only proves this to all the more, the more I read up about it. we know nothing compared to what we could yet know in say, a hundred years.

Overcoming of the speed of light, energy conservation and decrease of entropy... how should that be possible

if you understood physics as I understand them it would be quite possable to break the speed of light, enegry conservation is something we practice today and a decrease of entropy, wait, what is entropy again?

Omnipotence means a lot more than making it rain when you want to and turning the seas red. It means teleporting galaxies, governing all living beings justly and making weekday-morning television not suck - I submit that this is not possible with any degree of technological or biological development.

if you do survive a big bang enough times, then you'll eventually learn how to create one. with that much energy at your disposal there is a lot you can do. (though the cartoons are always going to have a little badness to them) I submit that it devinately is possable with great ammounts of technological achievement and massive ammounts of energy.

Also, evolution works not for the benefit of civilizations or for awesome superpowers; it works as a replication mechanism for genes or similar units. As our candidates increase their powers, selection pressures will fall and evolution will drop towards undirected mutation. I suspect that evolution would cease to be a major development factor long before a population even approaches divinity.

I take it you never thought I was talking about the evolution of technology? technology evolves too ya know. and nobody who isn't there in the upper ranks of near divine technological capacity can say that it cannot be done unless they understand why so either admit you don't know what can and cannot be done or refute my theories.

Apart from all counterarguments: If you resolve a centuries-old argument to your benefit within five lines, you've probably cut some corners

if you're refering to,... wait, what are you refering to again?

[Zobeid]

well, at least being a christian has taught me to sympathise with others. (something I see you failing to do)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression.

and you're missing the point entirely with my double bladed attack. the second part (thie infinite existance part) absolutely disproves athiesm by the suggestion that if the universe has existed forever and just gone through a series of 'big bangs' then something would have enventually evolved into a near godlike status. thus showing that god evolved and thus disproving athiesm using athiestic rules

I must have missed something. I went back and re-read your previous posts, and I still can't see where you "proved" anything.

First. . . We don't know if the universe has existed forever, with repeated big bangs. Most scientists would assume it has not, BUT let's assume for the sake of argument that it has.

We don't know if anything could survive the repeated big bangs and endure from one universe to the next iteration. It seems highly unlikely, BUT for the sake of argument let's assume it might somehow be possible.

Could some being have "eventually evolved into a near godlike status"? How would that work? I can't see how that would happen. But I can't prove it's not possible -- I don't really know, nobody does.

You're piling one imponderable upon another upon another and building a house of cards, and when you get to the top of your house of cards you're declaring that it "absolutely disproves atheism". You can't expect me to take that kind of reasoning seriously.

[Shyal_malkes]

*chuckles at himself*

ok, ok, I was using it in a way that was kind of indirect, think of it (the conversation/debate) as a kind of game.

I move with "athiesm is bleak"

someone (sorry but I've forgotten who) moves back with "IF the universe exists forever (through the multiple big bang theory))THEN atheism is not as bleak as you say it will be, or at least it may not be as bleak as you say it will be"

I move back with "if the universe works like that then it has probably existed for a long time already (infinity in the reverse?) and thus it is almost (line graph with a limit approaching 100% but never quite reaching it (linear algebra (don't worry I barely understand it myself it's just a vague reference))) certain that IF the universe has existed forever THEN it is highly likely (I admit now it proves nothing) that a race has already advanced far enough to achieve what we might call divine or godlike. which means that (since athiesm states that there is no god) the movement of "the universe can exist forever" is almost nullified as an argument. which would reinforce my origional move"

now that I try looking over what I was trying to say and what I was thinking, I am guessing that I was probably reading more into it then most would and I've probably got a lot wrong in my arguments and assumptions.


can I propose that we agree that whatever is out there I hope to live to know what (if anything) that thing is? be there a God or not?


BTW, did you ever believe in a God?

[Shyal_malkes]

my brain never relaxes when it's not thinking of something (it's nightmares just trying to get to sleep sometimes). as such, trying to ponder the unponderable is a hobby of mine. whether I actually get the right answer or not is probably yet another unponderable., hmmmm.

next up, doing the undoable.

[Zobeid]

someone (sorry but I've forgotten who) moves back with "IF the universe exists forever (through the multiple big bang theory))THEN atheism is not as bleak as you say it will be, or at least it may not be as bleak as you say it will be"

Sorry, I just don't get the whole bleakness thing. Nor do I exactly see how God makes everything so much less bleak if He is with us.

I find a lot of Christian doctrine pretty depressing, myself. Like I mentioned before, the whole "end times" meme strikes me as being a big downer.

can I propose that we agree that whatever is out there I hope to live to know what (if anything) that thing is? be there a God or not?

Oh, yeah! I hope I get to see how it all works out. We live at a particularly interesting and dangerous moment in time. . . If I'm right about the major trends I see in the world -- the progress of technology, population growth, resources depletion -- then the coming 50 years or so may be critical to the destiny of our civilization.

We may be near the deciding point where our civilization either begins to decline and collapse, or else breaks through to a whole higher level that we can hardly imagine. And if that sounds just a bit like Judgement Day, the big difference is that my view is a collective one. I envision us all creating heaven on earth (and beyond) or spiraling down to hell together.

BTW, did you ever believe in a God?

Nope. Never did really. For a long time I counted myself as an agnostic and kept open the possibility that there might be a God. But after a while I shrugged and asked myself, "Who am I kidding?" Well, I went to Sunday school when I was little, but I never understood a thing they were talking about, so the indoctrination just didn't stick with me.

my brain never relaxes when it's not thinking of something (it's nightmares just trying to get to sleep sometimes). as such, trying to ponder the unponderable is a hobby of mine.

Hah, maybe we have more in common than you think. I spend a lot of time thinking about the future, about what is possible, about where we might all be going. Some of the possibilities are breathtaking and some are terrifying. I think it all depends a bit on luck and a lot on our collective wisdom.