And that Heaven exists.

I don't think this forum supports evangelizing...

Nope, I'm quite happy with the way I think things are, thank you very much...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Nope, I'm quite happy with the way I think things are, thank you very much...

so you like the fact that one day, in your belief, your soul and body will be nothing and you will be gone forever never getting to see glory days again in heaven or on earth

Originally posted by no moore please
so you like the fact that one day, in your belief, your soul and body will be nothing and you will be gone forever never getting to see glory days again in heaven or on earth
Exactly! Glad you understand. :)

I don't think fulfill wishful thinking is a good reason for people to become religious. Do you? But then a lot of people do it all the time anyway. I think you should drop a reply at one of my topics on this section titled "The Appeal of A Religion" it would be interesting...not too many people participated on that one and I was a little disappointed. ;)

What atheists really wish is that a just creator didn't exist.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
What atheists really wish is that a just creator didn't exist.
Wish? No, we don't wish...

duck,

Does that mean they wouldn't mind an unjust creator? :rolleyes: Or an a creator who does not interfere? You could have explained a little bit more.

Why wish for something that's not true?

It's innane.

Originally posted by Lithorien
Why wish for something that's not true?

Why say something is not true when you yourself don't know the answer. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Originally posted by mad dog
Why say something is not true when you yourself don't know the answer. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Truth is absolute. You have one world. One reality. That reality is what it is.

You can accept or reject truth for different ideas, but truth is truth and you can't really change that.

Now, I'll grant that I don't know for sure the answer any more than you do. But using logic and common sense, I can say with 99% certainty that there is no god, was no god, and never will be a god.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
duck,

Does that mean they wouldn't mind an unjust creator? :rolleyes: Or an a creator who does not interfere? You could have explained a little bit more.
That is correct. A just creator must punish sin. Atheists wish the creator did not punish sin. If the creator did not punish sin, he would be an unjust creator. So, yes, atheists most certainly would not mind an unjust creator.

Let's see if the athiests on this forum agree. I'm curious about this also.

Duck, a just creator would A) not let people suffer the way people do today, and B) would not send people to Hell for eternity simply for not believing in him. That opinion is part of what led me to agnosticism/atheism, and what has led me to say that if it turns out Christianity is indeed true, I would not worship this God who killed millions and is sending, apparently, billions more to Hell for eternity.

As for "not minding" one, that's not an issue. If one exists, one exists. If one does not...well, one does not. I don't think there's an issue of whether we would "mind" one or not.

Originally posted by Lithorien
]Truth is absolute. You have one world. One reality. That reality is what it is.

I agree some, but what I see is different then what you may see so what is true? I may like lowrider motorcyles and say that is a real bike. You may like crouch rokets and say that is a real bike, so which is true? The way a person see's what is true makes whatever they are looking at true or false. ex; Lets say we both believe in God, you think of God as being a man with a beard, I think of God as being a force, who is correct? Both because what we believe in our minds is true to us.

You can accept or reject truth for different ideas, but truth is truth and you can't really change that.

This I do agree with, but a human does not know what is true, they only know what is true to their point of view.

Now, I'll grant that I don't know for sure the answer any more than you do.

agreed

But using logic and common sense, I can say with 99% certainty that there is no god, was no god, and never will be a god. ]

I find this interesting, what logic are you speaking of, and what happens if someday you do learn there is a God then what happen to this logic you once had?

Originally posted by mad dog I agree some, but what I see is different then what you may see so what is true? I may like lowrider motorcyles and say that is a real bike. You may like crouch rokets and say that is a real bike, so which is true? The way a person see's what is true makes whatever they are looking at true or false. ex; Lets say we both believe in God, you think of God as being a man with a beard, I think of God as being a force, who is correct? Both because what we believe in our minds is true to us.

Those questions are more a matter of opinion than fact. Lowriders and crotch rockets both fall under the catagory of "bike". But where the opinion comes in is where you add the modifier "real". Then you hit the realm of opinion, because both are factually "real" bikes. You're just debating the semantics.

As for your example about God, only one of the two can be correct. Do you or I know who is? No. But only one appearance can be true and factual.

I encourage you to read "The Black Unicorn" by Terry Brooks. It's a very good book that will show ya a bit about deception and how even though everyone else can see one thing, it's not really the truth.

Originally posted by mad dog This I do agree with, but a human does not know what is true, they only know what is true to their point of view.

A human can use logic and science to come to a conclusion about what is true and what is not. Past that, you are correct.

Originally posted by mad dog I find this interesting, what logic are you speaking of, and what happens if someday you do learn there is a God then what happen to this logic you once had?

What logic? I as a human have 5 (or 6, depending on what you believe) senses. Sight, taste, touch, smell, hearing, and timesense - eg: the sense of where I am in the stream of time (morning/afternoon/night/etc).

I cannot detect this God character with any of my senses. I cannot see, smell, hear, taste, or touch it. There is no evidence that he or she exists anywhere in the world. Nobody in this world talks to, hears, smells, sees, or touches this God. Our space probes have not yet been able to find him or her. So what other conclusion am I to reach except that he or she does not exist?

Saying a god exists is like saying that you have a million dollars. You don't know where it is, what it looks like, what it smells like, you can't taste it, and you can't touch it. Your best efforts to FIND it have failed. But you do have it somewhere in your house!

That makes no sense. So, neither does saying that there is a god.

As to if I am wrong? Well, I'll update my data and accept the fact. As to my fate? I would hope that me trying to be the best person that I can would be good enough, and if not, I have my doubts if I would want to worship that god anyway.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Duck, a just creator would A) not let people suffer the way people do today, and B) would not send people to Hell for eternity simply for not believing in him.
In other words, you wish that a creator who demanded perfection and punishes for sins did not exist. I believe that our creator has that right simply by being the Creator. Therefore, if he didn't punish sin, he would not be just.

That opinion is part of what led me to agnosticism/atheism, and what has led me to say that if it turns out Christianity is indeed true, I would not worship this God who killed millions and is sending, apparently, billions more to Hell for eternity.
If Christianity is true, you don't have that choice. Your entire existence will either be a demonstration of God's justice, or his mercy. Either way, it is an act of worship.

UNCOOLDUCK wrote:
A just creator must punish sin. Atheists wish the creator did not punish sin. If the creator did not punish sin, he would be an unjust creator. So, yes, atheists most certainly would not mind an unjust creator.

Do you know what an "atheist" is? Apparently not. Atheists don't believe that a God exists. Therefore, they can NOT wish that the creator did not punish sin because there is no creator in their minds.

In other words, you wish that a creator who demanded perfection and punishes for sins did not exist.

Those are your words because BorgHunter did not say anything of the sort. He said that the that God exists now (if one does) IS letting people suffer, and therefore IS unjust. He did not say that he wanted it that way.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Do you know what an "atheist" is? Apparently not. Atheists don't believe that a God exists.
That's what I thought an atheist was. I didn't say anything that would indicate otherwise.

Therefore, they can NOT wish that the creator did not punish sin because there is no creator in their minds.
They wish that there is not a creator who punishes sin, which would include wishing there was no creator at all.

Those are your words because BorgHunter did not say anything of the sort. He said that the that God exists now (if one does) IS letting people suffer, and therefore IS unjust. He did not say that he wanted it that way.
My original statement accurately represents BorgHunter's sentiment. He said he would not worship a God who allowed people to suffer and sent them to hell. People suffer because of all of the sin in the world. They are sent to hell as punishment for their sins. He believes that is unjust.

However, he is wrong. A just God punishes wrongdoing. If He didn't, he would not be just.

UNCOOLDUCK wrote:
That's what I thought an atheist was. I didn't say anything that would indicate otherwise.

Yes you did, you said the following:

Atheists wish the creator did not punish sin.

How can atheists "wish the creator did not punish sin"? What creator?

They wish that there is not a creator who punishes sin, which would include wishing there was no creator at all.

Its not about "wishing", they just don't think a creator exists. That does not mean that IF one did exist, they would not want him to be just.

He (Borg) said he would not worship a God who allowed people to suffer and sent them to hell. People suffer because of all of the sin in the world. They are sent to hell as punishment for their sins. He believes that is unjust.

Not all suffering comes from the sins of man, some suffering occurs naturally (floods, earthquakes, SIDs, etc.), and he said people should not be sent to hell just for not believing in God. He didn't say real sins should go unpunished, IF God does exists.

Originally posted by dnamertz
How can atheists "wish the creator did not punish sin"? What creator?
They wish there was not a creator who punishes sin. This would also include wishing there was not a creator at all.

Its not about "wishing", they just don't think a creator exists. That does not mean that IF one did exist, they would not want him to be just.
That's what they say, but I don't believe it. If they accepted a creator who was just, then they would have to accept that they deserve punishment for their sins.

Not all suffering comes from the sins of man, some suffering occurs naturally (floods, earthquakes, SIDs, etc.), and he said people should not be sent to hell just for not believing in God. He didn't say real sins should go unpunished, IF God does exists.
Natural disasters which cause suffering are a natural result of living in a sin-cursed world. To deny the existence of God is a real sin and will be punished just like all the others.

duck,

Although I am very skeptical of your ideas about the athiest's mentality, let's assume you are right all along. I am wondering, why do you think that the athiests lie about the fundation of their lack of belief? Why should they think one way and tell people another? What is to be gained by lying about it? If the athiest actually wishes that a just creator does not exist, what could be the harm to tell people just so? What is the motif behind the camouflage?

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
However, he is wrong. A just God punishes wrongdoing. If He didn't, he would not be just.
You have a lot of nerve, buddy, telling me my beliefs are wrong.

They wish there was not a creator who punishes sin. This would also include wishing there was not a creator at all.

Whichever atheist said this to you was wrong, so I will now correct you about the actual definition of the word "atheism" and it does not include the words "wish" or "who punishes sin":

atheism, n. 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I don't believe that Santa Clause exists, that does not mean that I don't wish little kids receive presents on Christmas.

If they accepted a creator who was just, then they would have to accept that they deserve punishment for their sins.

I'm still not sure what that quote has to do with atheists since, in their minds, there is no creator for them to accept, just or unjust.

Natural disasters which cause suffering are a natural result of living in a sin-cursed world. To deny the existence of God is a real sin and will be punished just like all the others.

If your God considers it a sin for people to not believe he exists, then he is pathetic. Also, if he kills innocent people via natural disasters as punishment for the sins that other people might have commited, then your God fits the definition of "unjust". Justice would be punishing the guilty parties, not the innocent.

I appreciate all you guys oppinions...but quite simple...

ITS A LOAD OF CRAP...sorry.

God does not "kill" anyone. It's not in God's will for anyone to parish, is it so much of him to ask to just except him as your savior? He is given you his sons life, so that your life will be spared. He is given you the opportunity to have any sin you commit whiped clean just by asking....and yet you dont have the courage to simply believe.

I will not bite my tounge on this next statement...

Athieism is Cowardism.

First of all, thanks for showing me this site, Jeremiah...I see many nice political debates in the future. As to religion...I'd much rather have heaven than be happy on earth. The Bible tells us that to die out to Jesus; to give our lives to him even when it means that we have to lose out on certain things in this life, gains us an eternity in Heaven.

Of course, most athiests don't believe in the Bible. They say that there must be some kind of contradictions in there somewhere, that the writers must have changed some things in there somewhere. But when is the last time you've ever heard thirty five people (such as the thirty five plus who wrote the Bible) tell the exact same story about anything?

Copies of the Old Testament have been found dating back hundreds and even thousands of years and compared to current copies...there was not even a letter's difference. Why? Because God preserves his word. In J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings preface, he talks about how many mistakes were made every time a new version was introduced, however the Bible in the thousands of years it has existed has NEVER CHANGED. Why? Because, like I said, God preserves his word.

That alone should prove the existance and strength of an Almighty God.

Your comparison between Santa Clause and God is flawed. The fact that Santa Clause does not exist can be proven, but the fact that God exists cannot be disproven; rather, it can be proven in what athiests would call "bizarre coincidences."

Nicely put....I been trying to get that point across for a while now, but they block me out. :bike:

Dio: You wrote : "If the athiest actually wishes that a just creator does not exist, what could be the harm to tell people just so?"

You answered it yourself. This is the one chance for athiests. This world is all they have; after that it's over. Athiests can't just go out and tell the fact that they're scared to death that they might be wrong because they must save face in the only life they have to live.

Originally posted by Serophis
Your comparison between Santa Clause and God is flawed. The fact that Santa Clause does not exist can be proven, but the fact that God exists cannot be disproven; rather, it can be proven in what athiests would call "bizarre coincidences."

Welcome to allforums Serophis.

I would be very interested to see you "prove" that God exists. Please feel free to start a new thread and lay out your proof. It would make for an interesting discussion.

For that matter, I'd also like to see you "disprove" the existence of Santa Claus...

Okay...as to prove the existance of God, see my first post here...

And if I must disprove the existance of Santa Claus, then I think that shows me the level of intelligence I'm working with here and I'm not sure I should even bother :-P

Originally posted by Serophis
Okay...as to prove the existance of God, see my first post here...

And if I must disprove the existance of Santa Claus, then I think that shows me the level of intelligence I'm working with here and I'm not sure I should even bother :-P

Hmm...if you think your first post "proved" the existence of god, I can only assume you're joking, since you're first post proved nothing. It merely contained the assertion that the Bible has remained unchanged since the day it was written. That assertion is demonstrably false.

The request to disprove Santa Claus was an invitation to engage in an intellectual exercise, nothing more.

If you respond to a polite welcome by making insulting remarks about a person's intelligence, I can only conclude that you are lacking in manners.

All these claims and guesses about what the athiests actually think is well and good. But these are in the end assumptions. The athiests may not think like the way some of you have claimed--whether to believe if the athiests are telling the truth of their feelings or not is up to you. I do not comfortably assume that people lie about the fundation of their beliefs. "To save face" is not a good enough motif IMO--there is nothing objectively shameful in having a lack of belief in religion. To insist that they are lying would be lying to yourself to make yourself feel better, because these are people's feelings and beliefs and the proof of these things' authenticity are completely self-contained.

I do not understand why the conventional explaination of an athiest's belief/lack of belief does not suffice for some people. Namely, that it has nothing to do with WISHFUL THINKING.

The second was a joke, which is the reason for the emoticon...the first part you still have not disproven like you said you have...which leads me to think that you cannot disprove it.

I would like to involved in this little excerise too....so don't exclude me.:p

I have no problem with the fact that some athiests just believe there is no God. However, I do believe that at some point there is that nagging that there is something more...that their way of life is missing something. The Bible even says that at some point God will stop knocking on the hearts of some and they will no longer be able to accept them. Why? Because they have rejected him enough and now he rejects them in return.

I don't see anything wrong with that...it is just like they're dead but they're still walking around...just as one who is dead has no choice of his spiritual fate anymore, those whose hearts have been hardened no longer have a choice.

The simple fact that you are here listening may mean that you still have that chance, and may continue to for years...just understand that it is not something you can procrastinate on forever.

Originally posted by Serophis
The second was a joke, which is the reason for the emoticon...the first part you still have not disproven like you said you have...which leads me to think that you cannot disprove it.

Ok, I'll accept that.

The following are two Biblical quotes, one from the NIV of the Bible, the other from the Amplified Bible. Which one represents the unchanged word of God?


1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3 he restores my soul.
He guides me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
4 Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death, [1]
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.

5 You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
6 Surely goodness and love will follow me
all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD
forever.



1THE LORD is my Shepherd [to feed, guide, and shield me], I shall not lack.
2He makes me lie down in [fresh, tender] green pastures; He leads me beside the still and restful waters.(1)
3He refreshes and restores my life (my self); He leads me in the paths of righteousness [uprightness and right standing with Him--not for my earning it, but] for His name's sake.
4Yes, though I walk through the [deep, sunless] valley of the shadow of death, I will fear or dread no evil, for You are with me; Your rod [to protect] and Your staff [to guide], they comfort me.
5You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with [1] oil; my [brimming] cup runs over.
6Surely or only goodness, mercy, and unfailing love shall follow me all the days of my life, and through the length of my days the house of the Lord [and His presence] shall be my dwelling place.

Both represent the same Bible and were translated from the original hebrew and greek scriptures. If I were to say that I am a male, and someone didn't understand so I said, "Okay, I am a man." Would I be saying something different? Or the same with a different word?

Also you must understand that if words in the Bible are in brackets, then they are not really there. They were added to explain better the words.

ITS A LOAD OF CRAP...sorry. God does not "kill" anyone.

Uncoolduck is the one who said natural disasters (which means God had something to do with them) are punishment for sins.

Athieism is Cowardism.

Religion is a crutch for brainless fools who aren't sure how the world was created so they idiotically cling to something that can't be proven. ITS A LOAD OF CRAP!!!

Your comparison between Santa Clause and God is flawed. The fact that Santa Clause does not exist can be proven, but the fact that God exists cannot be disproven. And if I must disprove the existance of Santa Clause, then I think that shows me the level of intelligence I'm working with here.

Since you dodged Vilepagan's request to prove that Santa Clause does not exist, I will ask you to try again (not that I think he does, but you said you can prove it, so prove it). Also, the fact that there is no God cannot be disproven.

Originally posted by Serophis
Also you must understand that if words in the Bible are in brackets, then they are not really there. They were added to explain better the words.

:) Thank you Serophis, I was quite aware of the purpose of the brackets.

You claimed:

Copies of the Old Testament have been found dating back hundreds and even thousands of years and compared to current copies...there was not even a letter's difference.


Since I've shown you two different versions where whole words have been changed, are you saying now that in fact the words have changed but not the meaning?

I would like to no why it is so hard for people to let go of there selfish pride and questions of what when how why and where....and just belive that Christ is your savior. What is it going to hurt? Have you ever seen a Billion dollars....no...but you have faith that it exists....does that end your world of asking logical questions.

God has absolutely no reason to be logical. I think he gave us the instinct to ask questions and to raise arguments, so we could better serve through faith.

God does not ask much. He simply wants the love he gives you in return...and because he doesnt wake you up in the middle of the night to go play x-box, he doesnt exist.


I dont understand how people can be so stubborn, when salvation is so easily given to you. But you can't get past yourself. You would rather spend 60 years on Earth asking questions. Than just having faith you will find the answers in Heaven.

Why is it worth it to shun God?

And as far as the whole bracket thing...

I mean comeon!

Everyone knows that changing these words to make it more understanable is not twisting the word of the the bible.

I mean get real! thats like saying if you change the color the paper of the font size....then there must not be a god...Oh no!!!


Seriously, how stupid!

Thx for backing me up Jeremiah...Seriously, about proving that Santa Claus does not exist? I can't believe I'm even getting into this, but anyway...how about the people who have visited the north pole and not found a secret factory full of elves?

Now about the supposed altering of the Bible...As I said, not a single letter has been changed from current old testament scriptures when compared to those from thousands of years ago. The Torah, AKA the old testament for us Christians, is copied by hand by scribes even today and not a single letter has been lost.

As to the English translations, a large group of people came together to make the New International Version (as well as the KJV) that is commonly used today. The fact that these differ is because of the time that they were printed. Where the KJV was printed hundreds of years ago, the same phrase translated from Hebrew or Greek into Old English would sound completely different than translated into how we speak and write today. I'm not saying that each letter is exactly the same that we normally read today and what was written thousands of years ago.

I *am* saying that the Torah, our record of the Old Testament in its untranslated state, is exactly, letter for letter, unchanged. This was simply to prove that God exists and preserves his word, not to say that the passages in the Bible have not been made easier to understand by translating them into our language. To paraphrase what Jeremiah said, just because now the Bible is printed on books instead of parchment doesn't mean that the words and the meaning have changed.

I doubt that when my savior returns he's going to come up and say, "Behold! How art thou doing?" Likewise, I don't think he'll be speaking in Hebrew or Greek. I believe that he will speak in a way that I can most easily understand and relate to.

To answer your question: "Since I've shown you two different versions where whole words have been changed, are you saying now that in fact the words have changed but not the meaning?"

Let me reiterate:
No, these are two different translations of the original scripture. It is the exact same as if you went to someone who spoke Hebrew and asked him to explain to you what the words meant. He would not say it word-for-word since in hebrew certain grammatical orders are mixed up ("my savior" in English would translate to words meaning "savior of me" in Hebrew), but he would put it in a form that you can understand using the same words and using the same meaning.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I would like to no why it is so hard for people to let go of there selfish pride and questions of what when how why and where....and just belive that Christ is your savior.

It's not about pride jere, it's about not being shown a logical reason to suspend my disbelief.

I think he gave us the instinct to ask questions and to raise arguments, so we could better serve through faith.

Yet if I question his existence, or argue against it, he'll cast me into a place of eternal torment, according to your myth.

God does not ask much. He simply wants the love he gives you in return...

Apparently he also wants me to cast aside all reason when it comes to contemplating his existence

and because he doesnt wake you up in the middle of the night to go play x-box, he doesnt exist.

huh?

You would rather spend 60 years on Earth asking questions. Than just having faith you will find the answers in Heaven.

I would rather not waste my life here on earth supporting a church whose only interest is gathering more willing followers to support it.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
And as far as the whole bracket thing...

I mean comeon!

I couldn't agree more, it was rather silly of Serophis to bring the brackets into the discussion.

Everyone knows that changing these words to make it more understanable is not twisting the word of the the bible.

I never suggested that the different translations didn't attempt to convey the same meaning, Serophis made the claim that the Old Testament today is identical to the Old Testament when it was written. Obviously it is not.

I mean get real! thats like saying if you change the color the paper of the font size....then there must not be a god...Oh no!!!

You are just being absurd. I must point out that I'm not attempting to "disprove" the existence of God, since that is probably impossible in a logical sense. You're friend claimed that since the Old Testament has remained unchaged since the day it was written, God "must" exist.

Seriously, how stupid!

How nice. :)

JEREJERE, you wrote:
I think he gave us the instinct to ask questions and to raise arguments, so we could better serve through faith.

Then you wrote:

You would rather spend 60 years on Earth asking questions.

So, should we ask questions or not?

Seriously, about proving that Santa Claus does not exist? I can't believe I'm even getting into this, but anyway...how about the people who have visited the north pole and not found a secret factory full of elves?

Of course, Santa is not going to let himself be seen...duh!!!

So, how about the people who have visted all parts of the world and not found God anywhere?

Originally posted by Lithorien
Those questions are more a matter of opinion than fact. Lowriders and crotch rockets both fall under the catagory of "bike". But where the opinion comes in is where you add the modifier "real". Then you hit the realm of opinion, because both are factually "real" bikes. You're just debating the semantics.

I do agree that may have not been the best example, but isn't opinion part of what makes a persons truth.

As for your example about God, only one of the two can be correct. Do you or I know who is? No. But only one appearance can be true and factual.

maybe not, you may see God different then I would, kind of like being color blind. I see colors, my dog sees black and white, we both see a house, but it does look different.

I encourage you to read "The Black Unicorn" by Terry Brooks. It's a very good book that will show ya a bit about deception and how even though everyone else can see one thing, it's not really the truth.

Exactly my point one group may see something as truth while the other group is seeing something totally different. I may read the book, but here's the thing, if I read this book and except what Terry is saying then haven't I just believed in another persons point of view?



A human can use logic and science to come to a conclusion about what is true and what is not. Past that, you are correct.

Human science can prove human understandings, and like I said before, what if you find out there is a God, then where did this logic you speak of come from?



What logic? I as a human have 5 (or 6, depending on what you believe) senses. Sight, taste, touch, smell, hearing, and timesense - eg: the sense of where I am in the stream of time (morning/afternoon/night/etc).

your senses are different from others. ex; you may love the taste of liver while I might hate it. So the truth to you is liver is delicious, where as the truth to me is liver taste like sh**.

I cannot detect this God character with any of my senses. I cannot see, smell, hear, taste, or touch it.

see this is where we are different because my senses are different then yours, or maybe your trying to hard to prove or disaprove something.

There is no evidence that he or she exists anywhere in the world. Nobody in this world talks to, hears, smells, sees, or touches this God.

I disagree, I also can not speak for all 6.5 billion people in this world.

Our space probes have not yet been able to find him or her. So what other conclusion am I to reach except that he or she does not exist?

Maybe your just looking at this in the wrong way, you seem to think that God should show up looking like an old man in a cape with a long staff. Maybe God is just the force of life itself, soul, spirite, etc...

Saying a god exists is like saying that you have a million dollars. You don't know where it is, what it looks like, what it smells like, you can't taste it, and you can't touch it. Your best efforts to FIND it have failed. But you do have it somewhere in your house!

That makes no sense. So, neither does saying that there is a god.

Have you ever seen a trillion dollars? neither have I, but according to our government that is how far we are in the hole.

As to if I am wrong? Well, I'll update my data and accept the fact. As to my fate? I would hope that me trying to be the best person that I can would be good enough, and if not, I have my doubts if I would want to worship that god anyway.

I'm not making this personal I'm just trying to explain another point of view. As far as it goes, I don't believe God cares if you believe or not, it will not make a difference. I don't not believe in a hell or in a bunch of judgements written by humans. I just believe there is a higher power and that it has proven itself to me.

For those that believe the Bible is unchanged I got some bad news for you. Things in the Bible have been interpreted, changed, and left out many times. There have been great fires that have been the result in lost writtings. There have been different intepretations. There have been thefts that resulted in lost writtings.

Someone also said that all the folks that wrote the Bible had the same Idea, NOPE... They came together with many different stories and added things up. I'm not trying to turn this thread into "beat up the Bible", but, all though the Bible may be an interesting book it is not truth. Does this mean Christianity is false? NO. It just proves then when man gets involved interpretations, stories, etc... can be lead astray. Did Noah build an ark? possibly, but it would be impossible for him to have saved every living animal. So there may have been a flood, but it is highly doubtfull it was over the entire world.

To the Atheists..

Admit it, you wish a loving creator existed, and that Heaven existed, and that Heaven is
FAR SUPERIOR to Earthly life, Admit it, deep down you wish it was True..

To the Atheists..
I also ask this....
Do you think their is any future for this world, because as a
Christian I can tell you, I don't think their is any hope for this World,
We are all DOOMED, Earth is Doomed, Humanity is DOOMED
our Only Hope is
For God to Eliminate all Human Suffering.

originally posted by Dio
Although I am very skeptical of your ideas about the athiest's mentality, let's assume you are right all along. I am wondering, why do you think that the athiests lie about the fundation of their lack of belief? Why should they think one way and tell people another? What is to be gained by lying about it? If the athiest actually wishes that a just creator does not exist, what could be the harm to tell people just so? What is the motif behind the camouflage?
I believe that humans are created with the innate knowledge that a creator exists, that he sets certain standards for human behavior, that we have not met these standards, and therefore do not have a right relationship with our creator.

There are 2 possible actions to take. We can try to enter into a right relationship with the creator, or we can hide from him by believing that he does not exist.

Many of the atheists arguments against a creator are sentiments that a loving creator would not allow people to suffer, or receive punishments for their sins. This leads me to believe that there denial of a creator is based on their dislike of how the world operates, rather than on any empirical evidence.

originally posted by dnamertz
Uncoolduck is the one who said natural disasters (which means God had something to do with them) are punishment for sins.
No, UnCoolDuck did not say that. If you are concerned about this, go back and read my original post. If you are still confused, I'll explain further.

originally posted by BorgHunter
You have a lot of nerve, buddy, telling me my beliefs are wrong.I knew you wouldn't mind, given some of the vitriol you've hurled my way.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I believe that humans are created with the innate knowledge that a creator exists, that he sets certain standards for human behavior, that we have not met these standards, and therefore do not have a right relationship with our creator.

There are 2 possible actions to take. We can try to enter into a right relationship with the creator, or we can hide from him by believing that he does not exist.

Interesting I believe the exact same thing only I would exchange the words CREATER with HUMANITY.

I believe that humans are created with the innate knowledge of their humanity, it sets certain standards for human behavior.

There are 2 possible actions to take. We can get in touch with our humanity, or we can hide from it by believing in a god.

we can hide from him by believing that he does not exist.
Hide?

We can get in touch with our humanity, or we can hide from it by believing in a god.
Hide?

Atheists don't hide. We just trust reason and facts more than faith. And the only ones who hide in their faith are those who spend their lives at church... like my grandmother.

No, UnCoolDuck did not say that. If you are concerned about this, go back and read my original post. If you are still confused, I'll explain further.

OK, I was paraphrasing. But here is your exact quote:

Natural disasters which cause suffering are a natural result of living in a sin-cursed world. To deny the existence of God is a real sin and will be punished just like all the others.

God created the earth, of which natural disasters are a part of, and these disasters kill innocent people (not just the sinners). Please explain this unjustice. Was that just one of God's screw ups...maybe 6 days was rushing it.

Why would the Bible be more important than the written words of a religion that was different? Are the writings of a religion that does not include Jesus of less value?
The early Christian missionaries helped to replace the long established religions of many parts of the world. Calling the non-Christians pagans. What if they were wrong? What if the true religion was replaced by Christianity and lost forever? How would one know that the Christian faith is the only true faith?

There will always be questions and attempts at unproven answers.
I have, in living over half a century, seen unexplained things. No proof that they were the work of an unseen God have I witnessed.

It is odd to me that the only reply I hear is to have faith or if something is screwed up-God works in mysterious ways.
These replys seem to be cover ups for no proof of devine intervention.
I do not need the insurance policy of a God. If there was a God and I had the opportunity to ask questions-he would not like me very much. For I would speak to him as tho he were an uncaring hipocrit that has expected his followers to act as he has not.
The compassion, love, and aiding of less fortunate the Christian faith demands is not done by their God.
Neither does Satan exist by my thinking.
The Bible is a good story. If nothing else existed it would be a good basic standard to live by.

Originally posted by dnamertz
God created the earth, of which natural disasters are a part of, and these disasters kill innocent people (not just the sinners). Please explain this unjustice. Was that just one of God's screw ups...maybe 6 days was rushing it.

There are no innocent people. Every person is desperately wicked and deserving of God's wrath. The fact that we are not immediately cast into hell to receive our punishment, and the fact that you and I have thus far escaped death by natural disaster are examples of God's incredible patience and mercy.

originally posted by the "President of Worms"
Atheists don't hide. We just trust reason and facts more than faith.
If this were true, atheists would not deny the overwhelming evidence that some intelligent being or force is behind the creation of our universe.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
There are no innocent people. Every person is desperately wicked and deserving of God's wrath.

Does this include newborn babies? If not, at what point do we become "desperately wicked and deserving of God's wrath"?

If this were true, atheists would not deny the overwhelming evidence that some intelligent being or force is behind the creation of our universe.

I suspect blib was referring to reason and facts arrived at using the scientific method.

You mentioned an "intelligent being or force" in your post. By that do you mean an "intelligent being or "intelligent" force?

Does this include newborn babies? If not, at what point do we become "desperately wicked and deserving of God's wrath"?
They still believe in original sin apparently. Even though Jesus' death meant that there wasn't anymore.

If this were true, atheists would not deny the overwhelming evidence that some intelligent being or force is behind the creation of our universe.
There is none! I have never seen it, you have never pointed it out to me. I spent a year doing nothing other than studying different religions and looking for proof in any of them(While a year is not necessarily that long of a time, I managed to cram a lot in and it is probably more time than most other people have done the same). I never found an ounce of evidence that suggested that god existed. I never found an ounce of evidence that suggested that Jesus was his son, I never found an ounce of evidence that suggested that Muhammed was god's prophet, that half of the people in the old testament ever existed. I never found anything that proved that god existed, not even anything that managed to give an inkling of an suggesting. Nothing other than your bible, nothing other than the Torah, nothing other than the Quaran. That is nothing more than stories, they don't give any proof. Religious people put their faith in untangiable evidence, faulty logic, and a book. I put my "faith" in the scientific method, experiments that give a lot of evidence that suggests things are true. Hell, I even put my "faith" in theories, that actually make sense. And your god doesn't. There is no reason for him, there is no evidence that he exists, there is no evidence that one religion is better than another, there is no evidence at all regarding religion. You have one sign that points to yes, that would be your religious texts. Science has the rest pointing to no. It can never "prove" anything, that word does not exist outside of math. I know of no scientist that fully believes String theory, quantum physics, relativity, hell even Newton's three laws of gravity to be proven or to be completely true. That is something you religious people do, vehemently declare something as true or not true based off of no evidence or very very shaky evidence. You have the full burden to prove, or at least give us tangiable evidence. We've said that before, you never gave any. And now you say that it's there?

If this were true, atheists would not deny the overwhelming evidence that some intelligent being or force is behind the creation of our universe.

Finally, we have found the ONE person in the world that has the evidence. What is it, God's corpse, video footage...come on man, don't Bogart the evidence, let the rest of humanity finally see it.

There are no innocent people. Every person is desperately wicked and deserving of God's wrath. The fact that we are not immediately cast into hell to receive our punishment, and the fact that you and I have thus far escaped death by natural disaster are examples of God's incredible patience and mercy.

What mercy? You said earlier that sinners go to hell, so if EVERYONE is a sinner, then we have escaped death by natural disaster for now, but we will ALL end up in hell eventuall...so what's the point.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Does this include newborn babies? If not, at what point do we become "desperately wicked and deserving of God's wrath"?
Yes, it includes newborn babies.

I suspect blib was referring to reason and facts arrived at using the scientific method.
I had that same suspicion. A proper application of the scientific method will lead one to believe that there is some kind of intelligent design or creator behind the universe.

The scientific evidence supports this. By believing that this universe occurred by some kind of accident requires far more blind faith and ignorance of the evidence than believing in God.

There have always been scientists that recognized that there was an intelligent force or being behind creation, but I suppose Blibblob and dnamertz know far more than the likes of Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, and Blaise Pascal.

You mentioned an "intelligent being or force" in your post. By that do you mean an "intelligent being or "intelligent" force? [
Indeed, I did.

originally posted by dnamertz
What mercy? You said earlier that sinners go to hell, so if EVERYONE is a sinner, then we have escaped death by natural disaster for now, but we will ALL end up in hell eventuall...so what's the point.
The mercy of not casting you or me into hell after our very first sin like we deserve. We do not all end up in hell. God was so merciful that he sacrificed his own son for us so that those who will put their full trust in him will escape God's wrath.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
A proper application of the scientific method will lead one to believe that there is some kind of intelligent design or creator behind the universe.

...

By believing that this universe occurred by some kind of accident requires far more blind faith and ignorance of the evidence than believing in God.
Two contradictory statements. Scientific Method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

The thing is, there ARE discrepancies. So the existance of a god is not proven or suggested by the scientific method.
There have always been scientists that recognized that there was an intelligent force or being behind creation, but I suppose Blibblob and dnamertz know far more than the likes of Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, and Blaise Pascal.
By the same token, you must know far more than Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Sigmund Freud, Marie Curie, or Thomas Edison.

The scientific evidence supports this.
We've asked countless times before, give it to us.

By believing that this universe occurred by some kind of accident requires far more blind faith and ignorance of the evidence than believing in God.
Are you even aware of Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and how little any scientist believes in the big bang? Even though Quantum Mechanics is still a very empty and holey theory, it still manages to give more evidence to chaos and entropy than I have ever seen of god.

There have always been scientists that recognized that there was an intelligent force or being behind creation, but I suppose Blibblob and dnamertz know far more than the likes of Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, and Blaise Pascal.
Oh come on, you gave one actual scientist, and I never knew he was even slightly religious, he basically brought out the idea of true research(which does not involve guessing and faith). You also gave scientists who lived more than a hundred years from now. You could of at least given us Einstein, he believed in god and even purposely added a useless and fake constant in his equations to attempt to give more proof to god. He considered that one of the biggest mistakes in his life, he set himself and other scientists back years do to that.

UNCOOLDUCK wrote:
There have always been scientists that recognized that there was an intelligent force or being behind creation, but I suppose Blibblob and dnamertz know far more than the likes of Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, and Blaise Pascal.

I never mentioned anything about science, so don't try and claim I'm acting supperior to Pasteur, Newton, or Pascal.

By believing that this universe occurred by some kind of accident requires far more blind faith and ignorance of the evidence than believing in God.

They both require TONS of blind faith, neither one sound logical, and both are probably unprovable.

The mercy of not casting you or me into hell after our very first sin like we deserve. We do not all end up in hell.

You said earlier that EVERYONE is a sinner (and you applied it in this quote as well). So then, God either punishes ALL sinners like the JUST God you said he was, by sending ALL of them to hell....or he lets them get away with their first sin by "not casting them into hell", making him unjust (maybe OJ was a 1st time offender). You are going around in circles.

JEREJERE wroteL
Athieism is Cowardism.

Actually, you would have to say that atheists are brave and religious people are cowards. According to you, atheists are going to hell just because they stick with their beliefs that God does not exist....thats pretty damn brave! On the other had, many religious people will believe in God despite what kind of evidence they see, because they are afraid that if they don't believe they will go to hell...thats pretty damn cowardly!

Originally posted by dnamertz
Actually, you would have to say that atheists are brave and religious people are cowards. According to you, atheists are going to hell just because they stick with their beliefs that God does not exist....thats pretty damn brave! On the other had, many religious people will believe in God despite what kind of evidence they see, because they are afraid that if they don't believe they will go to hell...thats pretty damn cowardly!
::gives standing ovation::

I'll offer a few parting comments on this matter:
All of the arguments against God are based on emotions. An objective application of the scientific method, does not disprove the existence of God. Neither does it prove the existence of God. I didn't claim that. I merely stated that there is evidence of an intelligent designer, and that evidence can be obtained by the scientific method.

For further support, you could check out this site (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org) , this site (http://www.icr.org), this site (http://www.reasons.org) or this site (http://www.origins.org).

These sites contain work by modern day scientists supporting the idea that our universe was created by an intellgent designer.

Another issue brought up was the basic issue of God's mercy vs. God's justice. For more information on this, and other basic Christian doctrine, I'd recommend this site (http://www.ligonier.org).

May God bless you all and lead you into the light of truth.

All of the arguments against God are based on emotions.

Thank you, but I'll decide whether my arguments are based on emotions since I would know, and they aren't...my arguments that God does not exist are based on lack of evedince.

I merely stated that there is evidence of an intelligent designer, and that evidence can be obtained by the scientific method.

The sites you provide do not give evidence, they give opinions. There are opinions on both sides given by intelligent scientists, that does not mean it is proof for or against the existence of God.

Is it possible that God created the universe? Yes, but probably never proovable. Is it possible that God does not exist and the universe was created by a "big bang"? Yes, but probably never proovable. So, since both scenarios sounds wierd and unlikely (like UFOs) the only realistic answer is "who knows".

All of the arguments against God are based on emotions.
Bullshit. All of the arguments for god are based on emotion and a 2000 year old text that can't exactly be trusted. We can't trust emotion, it changes. Arguments against god are based on logic and the fact that there is no evidence towards him. We're not telling people to believe in some magical being that may or may not be there. We're telling you to put your faith in things that can be proven, that actually yeild evidence towards. We have no use for a god.

These sites contain work by modern day scientists supporting the idea that our universe was created by an intellgent designer.
I see them pointing out holes in evolution as proof to a god. We are aware that evolution is not perfect(but it is so close that there is practically no debate), but that does not mean that it is not true. The only thing I saw as their "evidence" was phi, the golden mean, or whatever else you call it. While it is rather strange and odd that almost everything can be broken down to aproxamately 1:1.61, it still is not viable evidence to a god or such. You can't trust observations and descriptions. The only thing that can be trusted is experimentation. And you can't experiment on god.

I'll offer a few parting comments on this matter:
All of the arguments against God are based on emotions. An objective application of the scientific method, does not disprove the existence of God. Neither does it prove the existence of God. I didn't claim that. I merely stated that there is evidence of an intelligent designer, and that evidence can be obtained by the scientific method.

For further support, you could check out this site (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org) , this site (http://www.icr.org), this site (http://www.reasons.org) or this site (http://www.origins.org).

These sites contain work by modern day scientists supporting the idea that our universe was created by an intellgent designer.

Another issue brought up was the basic issue of God's mercy vs. God's justice. For more information on this, and other basic Christian doctrine, I'd recommend this site (http://www.ligonier.org).

May God bless you all and lead you into the light of truth. Saying that evidence of an intelligent design can be obtained by the scientific method is false. If you really want to be set free then get rid of religion.

No, I'm quite happy that God doesn't exist.
If religious people didn't exist either, I'd be even happier :)

Saying that evidence of an intelligent design can be obtained by the scientific method is false. If you really want to be set free then get rid of religion.

well said..we will never be really free unless we put this "religion" thing behind us. i am glad to see that there are still sensible people in America.
The likes of these "born again" are just taking this country and science back thousands of years!

I don't see why everyone acts as though there are only 2 sides to this issue. I say that I believe in God, and automatically everyone thinks I'm some sort of evangelical nutjob. In reality, I have no religion, and I certainly don't believe in all the stupid anti-science sentiment espoused by some religious people.

If religious people didn't exist either, I'd be even happier :)
I don't know how anyone can look at the Sistine Chapel and say that.

I don't see why everyone acts as though there are only 2 sides to this issue. I say that I believe in God, and automatically everyone thinks I'm some sort of evangelical nutjob. In reality, I have no religion, and I certainly don't believe in all the stupid anti-science sentiment espoused by some religious people. So when you say you believe in God then what is he or she? I know a lot of people that believe in God and are not evangelical nutjobs,although I know some of them too unfortunatly. There are a lot of people of faith that do not go for the theory of intelligent design and are not evangelical nutjobs. I don't believe in God but I don't care if someone worships one God or 20 Gods. I do care when religious extremeist try to promote intelligent design as science and fight to put it in our public schools.

So when you say you believe in God then what is he or she? I know a lot of people that believe in God and are not evangelical nutjobs,although I know some of them too unfortunatly. There are a lot of people of faith that do not go for the theory of intelligent design and are not evangelical nutjobs. I don't believe in God but I don't care if someone worships one God or 20 Gods. I do care when religious extremeist try to promote intelligent design as science and fight to put it in our public schools.
I'm not entirely sure about the nature of god (I just think we were created by some sort of intelligent force), and I find it hard to believe that any deity would take the time to watch our every move and worry about "sins" and whatnot. As far as the afterlife, that ones another "unsure" in my book... Although I do think there is something after death - whether it's reincarnation, or some form of "heaven", well I'm not sure!

I don't think that believing in god and believing in evolution are mutually exclusive, if that's what you're asking. I think that a superior intelligent being could easily have created the world and planned for evolution to happen.

Although I am not a Christian, I think one can be a Christian and still believe in evolution also. God creating the world in 6 days doesn't necessarily mean six of our days.... Days for a God could be longer, right?

Sorry for rambling, just getting my opinions out there. :)

If everyone's personal religious beliefs didnt become so intrusive, then i think most religions would be looked on better. I dont understand why someone who has a belief has to FORCE others to share this belief. If its something real, something true, then people have no option but to believe. However, faith is a choice, and you cannot force someone to make that choice.



Another thing for people without faith. You cant ask someone to prove God's existence, since it is an act of faith for all of them. I doubt that He has appeared in any more burning bushes lately. People on both sides of the issue should take a chill pill and let each other have their own belief, or lack thereof.

I don't know how anyone can look at the Sistine Chapel and say that.

I'm not sure I'd say a building is worth centuries of war and terror in the name of religion...

I'm not sure I'd say a building is worth centuries of war and terror in the name of religion...
Would you make the claim that more people have been killed in the name of religion than in the name of anything else? Or would you say that those wars could not have been justified some other way? Religion has traditionally been just the most convenient excuse leaders could use to convince the common people to be on their side in wars. Even the Crusades were politically motivated - the Byzantine Empire, beset by Turks, called to the Pope for help, and he saw an opportunity for himself and for Western Christianity to gain political power in the region, not to mention the immense physical wealth the spoils of war would bring,

Would you make the claim that more people have been killed in the name of religion than in the name of anything else? Or would you say that those wars could not have been justified some other way? Religion has traditionally been just the most convenient excuse leaders could use to convince the common people to be on their side in wars. Even the Crusades were politically motivated - the Byzantine Empire, beset by Turks, called to the Pope for help, and he saw an opportunity for himself and for Western Christianity to gain political power in the region, not to mention the immense physical wealth the spoils of war would bring,

That is certainly a good point, and it's hard to argue as we will never know for sure. It's safe to say the the Catholic church had incredible power in Europe, and it's hard to say whether they would have had that opportunity without religion.

Either way I was referring to persecution rather than wars.

That is certainly a good point, and it's hard to argue as we will never know for sure. It's safe to say the the Catholic church had incredible power in Europe, and it's hard to say whether they would have had that opportunity without religion.

Either way I was referring to persecution rather than wars.
The point I was trying to make can be applied to wars and persecution. Basically, the leaders did not like certain people, and accused them of being witches or heretics or infidels and killed them. My point is that they could have used other excuses. How about Stalin? His regime, religion-free I might add, killed so many people. Governments and monarchs can easily find reasons to torture or execute anyone they want to. In more recent times, we've seen "Communist spies" and "terrorists" singled out.

Religion does a lot of good things as well, on an individual level (giving people a sense of community and wellbeing) AND on a larger scale (such as religious charities). Most of the wisdom of the classical world would have been lost to Europe, meaning that things like the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution would have come much slower, if Christian monks (esp. in Ireland) had not preserved the ancient writings. In fact, for most of the Middle Ages in Europe, the only literate and educated people could be found in the church, and later, when other people became interested in education, it was to the Church they turned. All the old universities in Europe began as training schools for priests and clerics. In the Islamic world around the same time, science was the main form of education supported by religious and secular leaders alike, and many of our modern scientific breakthroughs were first begun by Muslim scholars, many educated in religious schools.

I don't think we are qualified to judge whether the good religion has caused outweighs the bad, so it's a bit ridiculous to say that religions are entirely bad and the world would be better off without them. We just can't know that, since we don't have the ability to measure out every single bad or good thing ever caused by religion and compare them.

I would like to no why it is so hard for people to let go of there selfish pride and questions of what when how why and where....and just belive that Christ is your savior. What is it going to hurt? Have you ever seen a Billion dollars....no...but you have faith that it exists....does that end your world of asking logical questions.

I would like to know why it is so hard for people to let go of their silly fantasies about this "god" person and just believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is your savior. What is it going to hurt?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn.svg/180px-Invisible_Pink_Unicorn.svg.png

I dont understand how people can be so stubborn, when salvation is so easily given to you. But you can't get past yourself. You would rather spend 60 years on Earth asking questions. Than just having faith you will find the answers in Heaven. Why is it worth it to shun God?

"Salvation?" What "salvation" are you talking about? The fairy tale about where you go when you die - a bright, sparkly heaven with angels flitting about among happy fluffy clouds? Just have a little faith and you will find the answers in the Clearing at the End of the Road, where the Invisible Pink Unicorn lives. He will give you all the answers you ever needed, like why is it worth it to believe in "god" when the Invisible Pink Unicorn will let you sit on his back while he zooms through time and space?

All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn!

http://ironwolf.dangerousgames.com/blog/wp-content/themes/ironwolf/images/ipu.gif

Oh come on, you gave one actual scientist, and I never knew he was even slightly religious, he basically brought out the idea of true research(which does not involve guessing and faith). You also gave scientists who lived more than a hundred years from now. You could of at least given us Einstein, he believed in god and even purposely added a useless and fake constant in his equations to attempt to give more proof to god. He considered that one of the biggest mistakes in his life, he set himself and other scientists back years do to that.

Einsteins cosmological constant had a scientific purpose, and as a matter of fact recent research has proven it to actually exist in a form, tho not as Einstein intended it. Nevertheless its there. It relates to dark energy.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein.

My boyfriend has that taped to the top of his computer monitor. :p

Amdit it?

:eek: :confused: :mad: :rolleyes:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein.

My boyfriend has that taped to the top of his computer monitor. :p

mhm, its a well known quote which is also taken out of context. It doesn't mean what the quote implies.

mhm, its a well known quote which is also taken out of context. It doesn't mean what the quote implies.
I wasn't making any comment about what it means. I was just reminded of that when Einstein was mentioned...

I wasn't making any comment about what it means. I was just reminded of that when Einstein was mentioned...

Was just saying :)

Amdit it?

:eek: :confused: :mad: :rolleyes: :confused:

[quote=DarkFantasy96]"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein.

"The Religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both natural and spiritual, it should be a religious sense arising from the experience of all things,natural and spirtitual, and a meaninful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."-Einstein

"The Religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both natural and spiritual, it should be a religious sense arising from the experience of all things,natural and spirtitual, and a meaninful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."-Einstein
See, now that Einstein quote I agree with. :)

Yup, that's the Einstein I like :)