The Dreaded Religion Thread

Legionnaired · February 2003

Well, first of all, the reason that a lot of Christians seem so hell-bent on conversion is due to Matthew 28:18-20, Otherwise known as the great commission.

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

It's pretty clear that conversion is inportant, from this verse. It's not a polite request or a guideline, Jesus up and says "Get off your butt and go talk to these people about me."

After all, what good is the Gospel, a teaching of forgiveness and salvation by faith, if nobody hears it? Why should I live my life any differently then the next guy, if it's not to help show God's love, and the kind of things that happen in people, to my fellow man? Shall I live to show God I'm faithful? God knows what's in my heart. Is it to discipline myself? Surely, God says in, I think, 2 Timothy, that he disciplines those who he loves, but wouldn't that be for him to do, and not me?

The purpose of living your life in a way that glorifies God is to show others just how glorious he is. You guys are living, breathing examples of why it's important for people to set a living, breathing example of what a Christian should behave like. Otherwise, how is your opinion ever going to change?

Do I try to share the gospel with my friends, and bring them out to my group? Of course. Why? Because it's something that has radically changed my life for the better. Forgive me if I want to try to help you as well.

Smoke_Nova · February 2003

Heres an idea to mind frag (stupid swear filter) you:

What if the universe doesn't really exist? What if what we see is what we want to see, that we, as a species, have been cultured to see over thousands of years? What if reality doesn't really exist except in isolated pockets where our conscious mind goes?

BTW, if i ever profess a religion i'm going Buddhist. I like the entire "Pay for what you do" concept (Karma).

And Kida, the entire point of Hindu reincarnation is not exactly life, death, rebirth, repeat ad nauseam. Slowly over time as you learn to do good by life, you slowly ascend through the ranks of humanity until eventually you reach a perfect spiritual being and then you get to live in the after-life as a Brahmins (essentially an angel-type in heaven).

Buddhism teaches that if you do good your next-life reflects. Be a serial rapist and in the next life, guess what, your an amoeba! Be a nice guy like Jesus is said to be and you might get to ascend human form and be an animal. Much like Hinduism, you ascend through the different forms of life until you are at one with your self. And then you get to be in Heaven, or at least the Buddhist equivalent.

And remember folks: People think. People change. And (bad context but oh well) The Devil can quote scripture too.

Quidam · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 21 2003, 06:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, first of all, the reason that a lot of Christians seem so hell-bent on conversion is due to Matthew 28:18-20, Otherwise known as the great commission.

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

It's pretty clear that conversion is inportant, from this verse. It's not a polite request or a guideline, Jesus up and says "Get off your butt and go talk to these people about me."

After all, what good is the Gospel, a teaching of forgiveness and salvation by faith, if nobody hears it? Why should I live my life any differently then the next guy, if it's not to help show God's love, and the kind of things that happen in people, to my fellow man? Shall I live to show God I'm faithful? God knows what's in my heart. Is it to discipline myself? Surely, God says in, I think, 2 Timothy, that he disciplines those who he loves, but wouldn't that be for him to do, and not me?

The purpose of living your life in a way that glorifies God is to show others just how glorious he is. You guys are living, breathing examples of why it's important for people to set a living, breathing example of what a Christian should behave like. Otherwise, how is your opinion ever going to change?

Do I try to share the gospel with my friends, and bring them out to my group? Of course. Why? Because it's something that has radically changed my life for the better. Forgive me if I want to try to help you as well.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
while i did not know the exact name of the verse, i did know that line- it is the probably the single line i hate the most in the bible. i hate it BECAUSE of its forceful message, because of its demand that christianity be taught to the ignorant masses.

also, i would like to point out that, like Burr, me, the atheist, has never drunk, smoked, SIGNIFICANTLY lied, and i am deeply disturbed when some of my friends joke about "having fun with a dead fetus"

meanwhile, the rest of my school gets wasted and drunk every weekend (my entire first period class besides me is like this-15 people), one of my friends worrys that she got pregnant, and some other people i know do "shananigans", where they go out and vandalise property and cars for "fun"

this gospel you speak of lives in the atheist but not in the religeous?

BTW, referring to your last line Leg, I cannot forgive your officious intrustion into my life because of one important reason: you intrude because you think that your way is better, when the fact is that it is not. you can try, but you will fail.
my good friend of 4 years found out i was atheist pretty fast. his attempts to convert me made us hate each other. he stopped, and we became friends again. i have no desire to stay near people who try to brainwash me into their lifestyle. what works for you does not make it the end-all be-all for everyone else.

Legionnaired · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quidam @ Feb 21 2003, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 21 2003, 06:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, first of all, the reason that a lot of Christians seem so hell-bent on conversion is due to Matthew 28:18-20, Otherwise known as the great commission.

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

It's pretty clear that conversion is inportant, from this verse. It's not a polite request or a guideline, Jesus up and says "Get off your butt and go talk to these people about me."

After all, what good is the Gospel, a teaching of forgiveness and salvation by faith, if nobody hears it? Why should I live my life any differently then the next guy, if it's not to help show God's love, and the kind of things that happen in people, to my fellow man? Shall I live to show God I'm faithful? God knows what's in my heart. Is it to discipline myself? Surely, God says in, I think, 2 Timothy, that he disciplines those who he loves, but wouldn't that be for him to do, and not me?

The purpose of living your life in a way that glorifies God is to show others just how glorious he is. You guys are living, breathing examples of why it's important for people to set a living, breathing example of what a Christian should behave like. Otherwise, how is your opinion ever going to change?

Do I try to share the gospel with my friends, and bring them out to my group? Of course. Why? Because it's something that has radically changed my life for the better. Forgive me if I want to try to help you as well. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
while i did not know the exact name of the verse, i did know that line- it is the probably the single line i hate the most in the bible. i hate it BECAUSE of its forceful message, because of its demand that christianity be taught to the ignorant masses.

also, i would like to point out that, like Burr, me, the atheist, has never drunk, smoked, SIGNIFICANTLY lied, and i am deeply disturbed when some of my friends joke about "having fun with a dead fetus"

meanwhile, the rest of my school gets wasted and drunk every weekend (my entire first period class besides me is like this-15 people), one of my friends worrys that she got pregnant, and some other people i know do "shananigans", where they go out and vandalise property and cars for "fun"

this gospel you speak of lives in the atheist but not in the religeous?

BTW, referring to your last line Leg, I cannot forgive your officious intrustion into my life because of one important reason: you intrude because you think that your way is better, when the fact is that it is not. you can try, but you will fail.
my good friend of 4 years found out i was atheist pretty fast. his attempts to convert me made us hate each other. he stopped, and we became friends again. i have no desire to stay near people who try to brainwash me into their lifestyle. what works for you does not make it the end-all be-all for everyone else.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I intend to FORCE noone to believe. You simply can't. All I can do, and all I intend to, is to tell you about it, and to invite you to come with.

If you choose to curse me because of it, then so be it.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>also, i would like to point out that, like Burr, me, the atheist, has never drunk, smoked, SIGNIFICANTLY lied, and i am deeply disturbed when some of my friends joke about "having fun with a dead fetus"

meanwhile, the rest of my school gets wasted and drunk every weekend (my entire first period class besides me is like this-15 people), one of my friends worrys that she got pregnant, and some other people i know do "shananigans", where they go out and vandalise property and cars for "fun"

this gospel you speak of lives in the atheist but not in the religeous?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I'm not really sure of what you're accusing me of. If you're implying that I said that all aethesits are evil, corrupt people, and that all Christians are nice, loving, wholesome ones, then you're mistaken. In general, the Christians that I know tend to act in a more, well, holy way then those who aren't, but it's never a cookie-cutter case.

Christianity is not about acts or works, it's about faith. If you ask God for forgiveness, he'll give it to you, you just have to have faith. That's the gospel, right there. Not that you should live your life like a monk, that you should believe. The rest comes <i>because</i> you believe.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>BTW, referring to your last line Leg, I cannot forgive your officious intrustion into my life because of one important reason: you intrude because you think that your way is better, when the fact is that it is not. you can try, but you will fail.
my good friend of 4 years found out i was atheist pretty fast. his attempts to convert me made us hate each other. he stopped, and we became friends again. i have no desire to stay near people who try to brainwash me into their lifestyle. what works for you does not make it the end-all be-all for everyone else.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Brainwash, eh? Since when is trying to tell someone about something that I believe as better brainwashing?

Nobody forces you to pay heed to me, if you don't want to become a Christian, that's your choice. But, I think there's a reprocussion for choosing against it. That's why I'm posting here, and that's why I've been debating this for 6 pages, to represent my faith in the best light possible. Forgive me if you have a predisposed hate towards people trying to do what they think is best. I'm sorry that you hate Christianity so much because of one mass.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>what works for you does not make it the end-all be-all for everyone else.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Alright, given. But it very well could work for you too. Might as well try.

Smoke_Nova · February 2003

When did this suddenly turn into the

<b><i><span style='font-family:Times'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'> Atheists defending their beliefs from the onslaught of those who have simply said they prefer Christianity</span> </span></i></b>
thread?

This is supposed to be a discussion. Ok, so what if Legionnaired believes that Christ is the son of God (capital because in Christianity there is only one, thus a pronoun)

So what if I believe both in Karma and also certain parts of Nordic lore?

I'd like to discuss with Legion certain parts of Christianity, such as the justification for the "Crusades". But instead you people have to attack him because he has faith in something greater then himself.

Btw Legion, do you know what religious justification was given for the Crusades?

Legionnaired · February 2003

Onslaught isn't the word I'd use to describe 3 people, but if we've made that big an impression on the thread, then... cool <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> .

Anyway, to the crusades....

From what I remember from history class (year and a half ago, and I didn't pay attention, so forgive me if I'm wrong.), European settlers began to move into the area around and in Jerusalem. They brought with them Roman Catholacism(SP), and were oppressed pretty badly (as a lot of Christians and Jews are today, I might add), to the point where their section of the city was walled in, but more and more Christians flocked to Jerusalem and the surrounding area on pilgrimages. I believe the Seljuk Turks, an Islamic nation, invaded Jerusalem, and took control, and, if memory serves, kicked out all Christians from the area.

Anyway, the pope and a lot of nobles didn't stand for it, and attacked in great numbers, in order to control the Holy Sepulchre ( Jesus' tomb). They attacked to try to take the city back, and the crusades started.

If you want more information, a search on Google provides a pretty detailed summary of the crusades here: <a href='http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm</a> .

RyoOhki · February 2003

Actually that's a bit misguided Legionnaired, I've studied the Crusades at university level and it's a little differant.

For starters Islam preaches acceptance and tolerance of the other people of the book, that is Jews and Christians. Muhammud believed them to be misguided, but because they shared so many beliefs he saw no reason for them to fight. Jews enjoyed far better treatment in Muslim countries and this was where the majority of them would flee to after the periodic pograms that swept through Europe frequently.
Christians frequented the pilgrimage routes to the Holy Lands commonly, and it was certainly not strange to see them around Jerusalam. They had free and open access to their shrines in the city, which had been conquored from the Byzantine Empire in the 7th century by Islamic forces.
At this time the Byzantine Empire was under attack from the Seljuk Turks, who were advancing up towards Constantinople (modern day Istanbul), which was both the capital and heart of the Byzantine Empire. Turkish forces were pressing Byzantine troops hard and the Emperor of Constantinople (his name eludes me for the moment) decided that he needed help. He thus sent a messenger to his rival Pope Urban in Rome requesting miitary aid.
Urban though saw this request as a great political opportunity. If he could send a large enough force, the Holy Lands could be captured for Catholic Europe and a great amount of Orthodox influence could be removed (this is looking at the split in catholisism, not unaligned with the split of the Roman Empire into the Wester Empire, which collapses, and the Eastern Empire, which follows the Orthodox faith, is recognised as the Byzantine Empire and lasts intil 1453 when Constantinople falls.) He thus decided to get as many men as he could to the Holy Lands to fight, and the best way he could do that was with a papal edict. In 1095 he did exactly this, calling for holy warriers from all across Europe to fight in the Holy Lands. Naturally a great amount of propaganda, most of it wildly untrue, circulated amongst the countries of Europe, helping to raise fervour for the Crusade. Eventually a force of some 100,000 soldiers, mercenaries and ordinary people left for the Holy Lands and eternal salvation, according to urban at least.
To put this force in perspectice realise that William the Conquorer, in 1066, conquored England with 7,000 troups. Now an army that had never been seen before in Europe, even in Roman times, was making it's way towards Constantinople. Once it finally reached there, having left behind it a trail of desolation (they rarely paid for their food, they just took it) the Emperor was appaled. He had requested a small force of mercenaries, not an army that could take his city if they so pleased. Eager to rid himself of them and put them to some use he let them through the city in small groups of a few thousand each, then closed the eastern gates of the city so they couldn't return. The crusaders now made their way south.
Of interesting note is that the first few towns the crusaders reached were actually Christian. They had remained after the Byzantine empire had retreated and had stayed true to their Christian faith, and were protected under islamic law. This didn't stop the crusaders from burning these towns to the ground, raping the women and slaughtering the men. Making their way south towards Jerusalam this rabble force began to weaken from lack of food and water, some turned back, others collapsed, others died in the inumerable skirmishes fought with the local sultans and caliphs. (Islam at this time was highly fractured into many differant parts and nations, the Holy Lands for instance were under differant rule from Syria, Egypt and Turkey.) The crusaders, through sheer force of numbers more than military skill, reached Jerusalam and after a short seige the city fell. This was one of the most grusome displays by the crusaders, as they ran amok through the city, raping everything female whilst bishops and preists shouted them on. Definetly a low point for Christendom.
With Jerusalam taken the lords and their forces which had come on the Crusade now started to divide the holy lands up, building castles and manor houses to consolidate their claims. For some 20 years these "Crusader Kingdoms" as they became known controlled the Holy Lands, before a military leader named Saladin united Islamic forces throughout the middle east and lead a jihad, or holy war, against the crusader kingdoms. He succeded, and although there were 4 more crusades after the 2nd and 3rd which Saladin fought, they never even reached the holy land,. the 4th crusade instead sacked Constantinople on Venitian orders.
That's the Crusades folks. And for the averge christian damn hard to justify.

Smoke_Nova · February 2003

and don't forget the march of nearly 50,000 children to go and free Jerusalem "from the savage hands of Islam".

Hell, almost every religion has a low point like that. Like King Herod's (Israeli) slaughter of babes. Or the Jihad's waged in Allah's name but not following his written word as seen by most people. Can't find something bad for Buddhism. Hinduism had it's low point with the persecution of Islamic Indians. reverse with Hindu Pakistani's.

Heck, every religion can be good and bad. It is the idea that is good. It is humans that mess it up so much.

kida · February 2003

"Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness." --R. Hall.

Stumbled on this rather bias quote.

Also:

"The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years, and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the "occupied territories" of the Holy Land." -Hist Paul Johnson.

Call me a fool, but anyone with a healthy brain can tell you that the outcome to war can be forseen to never have a positive advent. The Crusades from what I have slightly touched on, were a bloody campaign to rid the holy land and places of Mohammed tyranny. It was an effort to help the eastern Byzantanian Christians from becoming prospects of Islam and also a dark operation of greed, economics, and power.

So..What do we profit from such an action? Someone asked what the justification of the crusades were and I honestly think that there is no justification to the crusades. Perhaps religion is the justification for the crusades, maybe trade, or conversion? Face to face, point-blank, and with whole hearted sentiments, the so called crusades had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, the teachings, and the love that Jesus Christ taught. It was a mission imperfected and focused on the smaller scale of things, variating from trade, conquest, protection, revenge, power and etc. Evil exists, because we allow it to and choose to hold on to it, if it did not exist, this world would be a nicer place. We can learn from the past and change our future to better our race.

BioHaz · February 2003

I beleve that every religion is just a moral foundation for people. The rest is just primitive humans trying to explain something they have neither the understanding, or the words to properly describe such phenomenon. Even we do not have the slightest idea about the universe, sure we've made some of it understandable and proved that we are not geocentric, and even begun to play in the realm of quantum physics, of which we have not even scratched the surface of what its potentials for new technology, and what lies beyond that. We have not even completely explored our own planet. We are still primitive.

Abiogenesis, has to be true, cause even though we are alive, we are made up of elements that aren't. Every living thing boils down to elements, elements are not by any means alive by our standards. "Children of the Stars", to quote a famous book.

Creation of the universe, why do we obsess on it? What if it was never created, but always existed? Think about it, if we take the negitive forces in the universe, gravity, and positive forces in the universe, matter, we get zero. Isn't that what black holes technically are? Matter and Gravity occupying the same point in space, creating a kind of feedback loop in reality?

The galaxy also reminds me of a cell, it grows to a point from something, then splits into more cells. The center of our galaxy is pulling everything in it towards its center, into one "giant" singularity (which is probably a group of singualrities.) Once it has consumed all of the matter in the galaxy and a singularity comes into contact with another singularity, it explodes, releasing the combined matter creating new and more galaxies. To us, this takes trillions of years, but to whatever is above us, this may be mere seconds. These galaxies may be making up something larger than we can even fathom.

To think we are alone in the universe is a pretty self-centered view (not to mention a pretty colossal waste of space if there were no layers above us.) What if there is life in the universe that has lived past the creation of a galaxy, lived beyond the need of a body. This conciousness could've been the spark that started life on this planet, even pointing us as the dominiant species in a direction to join them someday, when not just our sun goes out, but our galaxy. Where then will we go, what by then will we have discovered? We do have a higher purpose, and thats to grow up. We are infants to the universe, learning how to walk and talk, but not understanding any of it. However, like infants, are learning from not just our successes, our failures too, we are all learning what it is to exist in something greater than just ourselves.

However, the best any of us can do as individuals is just to "be cool to one another", and everything will unfold as we choose where we want to go. All we really have is the present, and to make the best of what we have, and strive to improve.

I see debates like this one quite fruitless, and such energy should be better spent elsewhere, even though they are entertaining for a while, and can even be quite thought provoking, but again, pointless.

Quidam · February 2003

Leg, i can fully understand if you want to invite me to join you in your happiness, but once i decline, stop asking. not just me, ANYONE. the failure to do that is one of the great reasons why i believe religeon is wrong.

In responce to when you were not sure what i was talking about, my point was this: The gospel you spoke of was nowhere to be found in the religeous people i know and but lives on in me.

The majority opinion at my school is to do what you want, and then "convert" so that in the end you go to heaven. These people are afraid that the bible might be right, but they cannot live by the teachings. therefore, they take the lazy way out: giving your soul to jesus at anytime counts as "salvation" [as my scripture studying friend explains]

which brings up another point of the stupidity of the scripture: a man can rape, murder, and ruin peoples lives but the second he "totally" converts he is free to go to heaven and life the good life. if this religeous law was somewhat more like buddhism [karma, all actions will "haunt" you so to speak] maybe it would be acceptable, but as it stands, it is simply a cheap, easy, worry free way to die. is it possible? yes. acceptable? no

i said brainwash because the teacher who did this was not born christian. unlike her, many kids are forced to go to church without understanding the meaning and without understanding the idea. however, they still must go, until it is habit, and they never had a chance to think otherwise. Growing up WITHOUT religeon is what turned me atheist; i always had a choice to do what i want, and i chose what i thought was best.

regarding your statement about hateing the religeon because of one mass, i disagree. it was the events leading up to and after that event that made me hate the religeon so much. like i said in my first post, i did not feel this hate before christmas of last year. those events changed it.

Bogglesteinsky · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>which brings up another point of the stupidity of the scripture: a man can rape, murder, and ruin peoples lives but the second he "totally" converts he is free to go to heaven and life the good life. if this religeous law was somewhat more like buddhism [karma, all actions will "haunt" you so to speak] maybe it would be acceptable, but as it stands, it is simply a cheap, easy, worry free way to die. is it possible? yes. acceptable? no</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

thats the message of the gospel.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.
For God did not send his son into the world to be its judge, but to be its Saviour"
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
John 3:16-17 (Good News Bible)

Lets look at this another way.

A young man, studying for his degree, is not the studoius type. Every night he goes out to the pub and gets blind drunk. He stays in bed until 3:00pm and then all he does is just hang around with his mates.

Suddenly he realises that if he doesn't shape up and get his act together, he is going to fail his degree, and he wont be able to get a decent job, and he'll be left on the streets to live out his days in a cardboard box.

I think everyone here (if they had more than half a brain) would agree that this man would be a fool not to reconsider his whole lifestyle.

The young man decides to change. instead of going to the pub every night, he stays up late, work very hard and studys, and passes his degree with honours.

In the same way, any person, thinking about their life, and their death, would be a fool not to consider the options.

When it comes down to the rapist and serial killer, obviously you dont know how hard it is to "totally" convert. Wouldn't you rather spend your days living for the moment than sipping coffee with old ladies? (not that that is all we do...)

The gospel is not the easy way out, nor a life insurance policy. it is the story of one perfect man's love for everybody. yes, the rapist gets "let off the hook", but Jesus gets "put on the hook" for him.

I dont know how many of you watch the simpsons, but you may remember the episode when Bart becomes a hall moniter and Lisa steals all of the "teachers edition" of the workbooks. When Bart finds out, and Principle Skinner wants to know who stole the books, Bart says it was him. i suggest you watch that episode, its a god example of the Christain Faith. And its also very funneh...

[edit] just a little problem with the guided quote mode... [/edit]

Quidam · February 2003

all you did was prove my point boggle

/edit after some thought, i decided to make a response anyway.

your young man example is irrelevant; it does not prove anything, so i will view it as a red herring.

"consider the options"? so clearly, i should act through my self-preservation instinct, and life my life as i wish, do what i want, then let jesus die for me so i can go to heaven safe and sound.

that is pure idiocy. that is exactly what causes corruption in churches, and look just how corrupt it is!

Legionnaired · February 2003

OK: 1) The crusades only really need justification if you believe that the pope is infallable. No person is, I don't agree with the Crusades at all.

2) Ahh yes, the salvation by faith, and the outrage that usually comes with it.

First off, technically, yes someone can do evil their entire life, and then accept Christ. However, there's no majic words that you say to do this, no sacraments you partake of, and no charms you can posess that can do this for you. It needs love, it needs humbleness, and it needs a true asking of forgiveness, not of simply trying to act on a technicality to loophole-your way into heaven, that;s not love. That's not anything but cowardly.

<span style='color:white'>
1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.</span>

kida · February 2003

"A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD

The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions. Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there. One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going. He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not.

Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities. We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions. If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me. Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning. If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other. The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields.

The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.

THE BEGINNING

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to

form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

picture at <a href='http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html' target='_blank'>http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html</a>

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!

A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas I If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum_a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is

"through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:

We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.
The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.

THE NEXT STEP

We have seen a practical proof of God's existence in this brief study. A flood of questions arise at this point. Which God are we talking about? Where did God come from? Why did God create us? How did God create us?

All of these and many more are answered in the same way_by looking at the evidence in a practical, common sense way. If you are interested in pursuing these things in more detail, we invite you to contact us. We have books, audio tapes, video tapes, correspondence courses, and booklets available and all can be obtained on loan without cost."

-Mr.Clayton
Trust me, the universe was created at a certain time, approximately 10-20billion years ago....

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

Wow that is amazingly non-scientifically based.

Anyone else wanna post something that some guy just made up cuz he wanted to prove his point?

Legionnaired · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 22 2003, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Wow that is amazingly non-scientifically based.

Anyone else wanna post something that some guy just made up cuz he wanted to prove his point?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Did... you even read that?

kida · February 2003

"Newton realized that, according to his theory of gravity, the stars should attract each other, so it seemed they could not remain essentially motionless. Would they not all fall together at some point? In a letter in 1691 to Rcihard Bentley, another leading thinker of his day, Newton argued that this would indeed happen if there were only a finite number of stars distributed over a finite region of space. But he reasoned that if, on the other hand, there were an infinte number of stars, disributed more or less uniformly over infinite space, this would not happen, because there would not be any central point for them to fall to."

"This argument is an instance of the pitfalls that you can encounter in talking about infinity. In an infinite universe, every point can be regarded as the center, because every point has an infinite numberof stars on each side of it. The correct approach, it was realized only much later, is to consider the finite situation, in which the stars all fall on each other, and then ask how things change if one adds more stars roughly uniformly distributed outside of this region. According to Newton's law, the extra stars would make no difference at all to the original ones on average, so the stars would fall in just as fast. We can add as many stars as we like, but they will still always collapse in on themselves. We now know it is impossible to have an infinite static model of the universe in which gravity is always attractive." -Stephen W. Hawking A Brief History of Time.

If the Universe was infinite, that would mean there would be an infinite number of stars, if there were an infinite number of stars, there would be no such thing as night, because all the energy those stars give off will reach the Earth and light it up. Everthing in between the paths of thse two objects will be heated up and incinerated, because the Universe is "eternal."

So your saying that you are right and what millions of people and scientists like Stephen Hawlking have come to believe through the Science is wrong? lol

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 22 2003, 02:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 22 2003, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Wow that is amazingly non-scientifically based.

Anyone else wanna post something that some guy just made up cuz he wanted to prove his point? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Did... you even read that? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
sure did, and it made my mind cringe.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity! </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It is true that all matter was at one time within a singularity, which then exploded to form the universe as we see it. But, no one ever said that that is where the matter was CREATED, it is only said that that is where the matter WAS.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas I If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum_a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
All this illustrates is the authors ignorance of what he is talking about. The author is assuming that once you turn hydrogen into something, it cannot be turned back. That is so wrong it hurts.
Also, he says that we see hydrogen everywhere, whereas what we actually see is hydrogen of the past, which may have been turned into anything by the time we see it.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
1)The universe is not a closed system, as there is more than one, and they do interact on the quantum scale.
2)It is impossible for the universe to lose anything forever, as whenever it gives off light or heat, the energy travels in a straight line, which is in fact bent by gravity to be curved, and would eventually either A)end up right back where it started, or B) become part of the big crunch(as the universe moved back in on itself, the bending of space would become greater and greater, and therefore it's size would decreas dramitically, moving said energy back to the center of the universe whether it was moving away or not, to be sucked into the great singularity)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So your saying that you are right and what millions of people and scientists like Stephen Hawlking have come to believe through the Science is wrong? lol </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
You ever READ A Brief History Of Time? Obviously not, because if you did, you would know that the fact that the univers as we see it was once in another form, at the point that is the center of the universe as we see it has no bearing on whether or not said universe was created there.

Bogglesteinsky · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quidam @ Feb 22 2003, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>all you did was prove my point boggle

/edit after some thought, i decided to make a response anyway.

your young man example is irrelevant; it does not prove anything, so i will view it as a red herring.

"consider the options"? so clearly, i should act through my self-preservation instinct, and life my life as i wish, do what i want, then let jesus die for me so i can go to heaven safe and sound.

that is pure idiocy. that is exactly what causes corruption in churches, and look just how corrupt it is!</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
1) What was your point?

2)My young man example (btw, did you actually read it?) was actually based on an idea I got from a book, "A Sneaking Suspicion" by John Dickson: "...if you realise you're about to fail maths at school, you would be foolish not to take it more seriously and spend more time at your desk in preparation" (pg 92)

3) But do you really feel that that is the best way to repay someone who died for you?

[WHO]Them · February 2003

Kida, please never speak again.....

Your initial post about the proof of god has a stunning word association flaw. You somehow replaced every instance of the word retard in there with the word atheist.

Just in case everyone forgot. I'm on the Atheist team of this discussion.

Science DOESN'T try to state as a matter of absolute fact most of the universe-wide questions we have pondered. Only explanations based on what we know. So don't try to pawn off the statement that we Atheists know all and see all and that this all seeing-ness is wrong. We never claimed to know all and see all.

I do not claim that there couldn't be some higher being than humans, only that if such a being existed it would not be the God figure you speak of and most likely would not care about humans at all. I only claim that this "Alpha and the Omega" statement is just as flawed as an Atheistic way of viewing the world and that you people need to get that through your heads. You point at all the thoughts of millions of people over thousands of years as being flawed. And I grant you that there are portions that ARE flawed. But I point at a book written by 20 some odd guys in a "state of agency" to be flawed. This book can be the main "Bible" of any religion you pick and the 20 some odd guys may be more, but the point still stands.

If anyone here has not read any studies on how people behave when acting in a state of agency then I absolutely must demand that you do so before replying. People will do some weird and crazy things when in this state simply because they disassociate themselves from their actions. I believe that this is one of the roots for most of the "Jesus saved my life" stories that happen. People simply don't WANT to do anything anymore and take on a new personality simply because the personality is there waiting to be imposed by a congregation. Sort of like an empty mold just waiting to be filled with *something*.

And for those of you that won't read any of these studies simply because you feel that anyone acting in a state of agency must be a nutball, please reconsider. It's amazingly easy for any person to go into this state of thought at almost any time and I guarantee that any person on this earth has done so even as recently as in the last month for some reason or another.

So to sum this all up. The next person that says the words "Alpha and the Omega" will have their mental representation in my mind stabbed to death with a dull spoon. And people have to realize that they are too impressionable and stop falling for this higher power watching over our lives crap.

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
This part of the argument does have a little scientific validity to it. There were a great many scientists who were upset when the big bang theory was first proposed because it violated their notions of an infinite eternal impersonal universe. This is far from a proof though. One of the fairly common ideas for an explanation of the eternal universe is that there have been an infinite number of big bangs, and an infinite number of big crunches. The idea is that the universe explodes from a singularity, expands for millenia, and then reverses direction under mutual gravitic attraction, and reverts to singularity again. Rinse, wash repeat.

The part about charge conservation is completely bogus. The universe is electrically neutral. All the charge in the universe could therefore arise from nothing. It is a well documented phenomenon that electron/positron pairs will spontaneously appear out of a vacuum.

The thermodynamics argument also has some problems. Even if we neglect the idea of an oscillating universe, there are many possible rates for the overall entropy increase that would mathematically produce a finite amount of entropy for any given time period. The entropy of singularities has been a subject of current research. Ask Stephen Hawking about that.

the bit about angular momentum has the same problems as the bit about charge. All that is required is that there is the same amount of mass rotating clockwise as counter-clockwise. (in every possible plane, but you get the idea)

In order to violate conservation of energy, you would have to argue that the spaceless timeless nothing of a singularity has less potential energy than the universe has matter and energy. This is impossible for physicists today and it is most certainly impossible for the writer of this article.

His summary of the anthropic principle is also completely wrong. It is an attempt at an explanation for why of all the universes possible under M-theory, we happen to have the one that has the physical properties to support life. The anthropic priciple proposes that the only universe that could be observed is the one that could support life, and so therefore it is the one we observe.

A large part of me profoundly wishes that there could be such a simple proof for the existence of God. There simply isn't. It is pretty arrogant for this guy to suggest that all of the non religious and athiest people in the world (30% of the population) are ignoring physical proof and common sense. He is making a common error that I see in most religious conversion attempts. It seems that many people think that everyone would agree with them if "they would only let themselves". (dont take this as an attack anyone, this is just what I observe in the pamphlets that get handed to me and in the 13-year old athiests who "have it all figured out")
The idea of a concrete logical proof of the existence of God (or of the validity of Christianity) even validates some of the essential parts of Christianity. If there were proof, then faith would have no meaning. The decision to accept Christ as your savior would become the automatic result of common sense. It would become as meaningless a decision as whether or not to breath. It is only within the nebulous uncertainty of reality that debate, thought, religion, (and some would argue free will) can exist. I personally am thankful for it.

Bogglesteinsky · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO]Them @ Feb 22 2003, 03:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ...by 20 some odd guys in a "state of agency" to be flawed.

If anyone here has not read any studies on how people behave when acting in a state of agency then I...  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
do you mean urgency instead of agency?

Smoke_Nova · February 2003

Nice to see some...somewhat intelligent discussion on the thought of Creation, but come on people, condense your thoughts and cross-reference!

by the way, thanks to Ryo-Ohki and Legionnaired for answering my question about the crusades.

Bogglesteinsky · February 2003

the main problem i have with the big bang <b>theory</b> is where did the little particle that exploded come from?

[WHO]Them · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (z.x. bogglestiensky @ Feb 22 2003, 12:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> do you mean urgency instead of agency?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
nope, agency, deriving from being an agent.

kida · February 2003

-All ur hive, I was simply reacting to your post about the author's article. No hard feelings. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

-WHO[Them], sry if my iq isn't 250 and sry if i disturbed your mental representation of what God is to you, but the fact that I am trying to portray here is that the universe is not infinite, thats it, really. Your comment was pretty ignorant and it just shows what type of individual you really are. The "Alpha and Omega" reference was a Christian explanation for God being the very beginning. Roll back the tape WHO [Them], when did I ever personally write the word athiest? Just cause my views don't fit with yours does not mean you have to flame me.

Everyone here is entitled to their own opinions and let the thread remain remain a discussion <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (z.x. bogglestiensky @ Feb 22 2003, 03:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> the main problem i have with the big bang <b>theory</b> is where did the little particle that exploded come from? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
1)Theory in the scientific sense means something that is impossible to prove for sure, but that the vast majority of the scientific community backs. Saying that someting is a theory doesn't make it any less viable, all it means is that we can't know for 110% positive no backsies for sure, and niether can you.

2)Where did God come from?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> -All ur hive, i was simply reacting to your post about the author's article. No hard feelings.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I havn't held anything said in the discussions forum against anyone outside discussions yet(but inside discussions, all bets are off).

[WHO]Them · February 2003

first of all, try to make some more sense kida.
second, the universe IS infinite, but that doesn't mean that there is *stuff* in all the infinity. Basically there is no end to the nothingness of space.

/me thinks that Kida is here simply to be an agitator

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO]Them @ Feb 22 2003, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> second, the universe IS infinite, but that doesn't mean that there is *stuff* in all the infinity. Basically there is no end to the nothingness of space.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
No it isn't, it's circular.

The Dreaded Religion Thread

Comments