View Full Version : Time off + Deeply religious debate that i can't be arsed to read.
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 12:11
its got to the point now where i think i need to take some time off, completely off, no training of any kind as i just seem to be acquiring more and more niggles and nothing seems to be healing.
I find this very hard as i have always trained, i dont know how not to.
Any ideas of what I can do to occupy my brain and to stop the withdrawl symptoms i'm bound to get?
Watch training videos,watch MMA stuff,watch instructionals.sleep,eat well(*yea right!!!)Think about how much better you will be when you are recovered.Learn to play harmonica.Plan holiday with AD.
I don't think there is any porn left in the world that Andy hasn't watched.
Andy, write a book on training, sorted.
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 12:16
but i dont know anything
So it'll be a shit book...
Yea ,write a book.Although you'll need to learn how to read and write first...
http://cryogel.sc46.info/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=8&category_id=1&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1
What about AD suggesting some bits and pieces to help and you taking some supplements on a regular basis that might help a bit?Some anti inflamatories etc etc.
Go on holiday that's when i normally break off from training
Good idea Ocaz.Some heat on that shoulder might help it a bit.Plus if you dont have anywhere to train either you cant train...
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 13:06
hmmm i could write some articles for the forum maybe, any ideas?
the block
15-07-2007, 13:27
maybe some articles that would give us mere mortals an insight into:
1) some of the funky exercises that you do (so we can understand your journal)
2) importance of unilateral work (if there is any :) )
3) your insights into weight training for people who practice martial (not marital) arts
4) the worst training mistakes you have made and comments on them
5) the reason why you are called PikeKing
6) Your training philosophy - how you like to train and why
7) What makes a good PT
and so on...
I have an article for you "Occupying yourself when taking a break from training" ;)
5 : He is a good fisherman.
And if he was was called Sharking,well thats something totally different.
best bet would be a long holiday if it's practical work wise etc.
Enjoy yourself for a couple of weeks, no training, no "diet", no supplements. Just have a good time.
Come back with a nice tan, a few stories and hopefully a healed body!!
, no "diet",
LOL at "diet".This is ANDY we are talking about.
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 14:17
yeah i laughed at that and the supplements bit.
any particular instructionals to check out tone?
yeah i laughed at that and the supplements bit.
any particular instructionals to check out tone?
Lovers guide.
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 14:26
Lovers guide.
haha brilliant
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 14:29
5 : He is a good fisherman.
well i dunno about good
I'll sort you out some stuff if I can burn you off some bits.See you in 2008.At least you sorted out a replacement already.....
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 14:34
I'll sort you out some stuff if I can burn you off some bits.See you in 2008.At least you sorted out a replacement already.....
****ing hell :089:
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 14:38
yeah thats me, quite a few years ago tho
.See you in 2008.
Sorry, that is a typo.Should read 2009. :023:
well i dunno about good
I think I remember seeing that pic, tis a big ****ing fish. One thing I don;t get though, does one require full camo gear to hunt fish, what did you catch it with, a sherman tank?
yeah thats me, quite a few years ago tho
So who is the nonce in the hat holding you then?
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 14:45
I think I remember seeing that pic, tis a big ****ing fish. One thing I don;t get though, does one require full camo gear to hunt fish, what did you catch it with, a sherman tank?
buying army surplus gortex gear is far cheaper than going into millets or some other "outdoor store".
plus the more u can blend with the surroundings the better
probably caught that on a smaller fish, cant remember now
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 14:45
So who is the nonce in the hat holding you then?
i dunno, some guy
how heavy was he/she?Bout 15lb ish?
I think I remember seeing that pic, tis a big ****ing fish. One thing I don;t get though, does one require full camo gear to hunt fish, what did you catch it with, a sherman tank?
GUTTED.
I was gonna rip on him for that only in a funnier way. :016:
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 15:04
how heavy was he/she?Bout 15lb ish?
yeah probably, i cant remember, not huge but the biggest picture i had on my comp
the block
15-07-2007, 15:14
after seeing that pic i will never think of you the same again
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 15:16
i'm not sure if that is good or bad
the block
15-07-2007, 15:20
write an article on it! :D
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 15:21
write an article on it! :D
i'll write an article on you!
i'll write an article on you!
:023:
You could make a draft copy on the back of all your sicknotes....
In seriousness,how long are you planning on taking off?You could get some fishing in there too.And maybe see about improving/changing business/job etc?
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 16:07
:023:
You could make a draft copy on the back of all your sicknotes....
hmm i sense someone is pissed
hmm i sense someone is pissed
Not on a cup of tea I'm not!! :023:
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 16:10
ah, thats the wrong tea then
Need some green tea and 'herbs' in it then?
What you reckon,total break for a couple of months and then ease back into it and see how you go?Eat healthy (!) ,supplements and rest up then return?
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 21:12
i dont know really, in all honesty i dont want to take any time off, but i'm getting to the point now where i dont know what to do.
food wise i'm all right really i dont eat as badly as i make out, though i have just ordered a pizza!
supplements, other than fish oil and glucosamine i'm not sure what else, i might try popping some devils claw too.
Well I have suggested it to you a few times,havent I ?About time you listened ya bloody MUPPET!!!!!!
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 21:20
hmm dare i take the summer off, u better let me come back if i do
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 21:27
this pic should remind you who i am
Angel Delight
15-07-2007, 21:44
Make a decision. Either take 2 months off and stop posting during that time. I can heal you with Reiki and you know it, if you would only allow me too.
If not, just train through the injuries and stop making a big thing about it all.
Your choice.
the block
15-07-2007, 21:46
the one kneeling bears a striking resemblance to the picture of the dude holding a fish...
PikeKing
15-07-2007, 22:07
right.
I'm going to take a month off, completely off everything.
After that i'll reassess.
15th of August I'm gonna be back!
That pic absolutely rules!
Good decision Andy, I'm sure it will do you the world of good and you'll come back firing on all cylinders.
BengDogg
16-07-2007, 16:08
Im gonna take a few weeks of training to decorate the house, im estimating it will use my free time for 3-4 weeks but it really needs doing as ive put it off for over 3 years now
i dont mean to demean anyones interests or jobs or whatever but isnt reiki the thing whre you dont even touch them ?
im sceptical of hippy stuff at the best of times but how is that even supposed to work?
HardcoreSportsTraining
16-07-2007, 20:42
Energy/shakras I think
Energy/shakras I thinkChakras. I haven't had any reiki work done. But I once had a shaman who was a reiki master touch me (no homo) and he did have a very special energy about him. Healing hands.
Angel Delight
18-07-2007, 14:27
Reiki Is Not A Hippy Art. It Is Actually Quatum Physics! I Have Been A Reiki Master Since March 2004 And I Can Guarrantee It Works!!!!!!!
Angel Delight
18-07-2007, 14:31
Reiki Had Changed My Life And Got Me Through Many Testing Times. It Is Used On The Chakra's. The Energy Centres Throughout The Body And It Is About Removing Blockages And Negative Energy Replacing It With Positive Energy!
Many Doctors Know Reccognise The Benefits Of Reiki And It Is Being Used In Hospices Around The Country.
Reiki Is Not A Hippy Art. It Is Actually Quatum Physics! I Have Been A Reiki Master Since March 2004 And I Can Guarrantee It Works!!!!!!!Where did you learn your reiki skills?
And have you just discovered the shift key?
The forum is set to convert any post consisting entirely of capitals to title case.
Angel Delight
19-07-2007, 22:53
The forum is set to convert any post consisting entirely of capitals to title case.
Just realised that. I actually like writing things of importance in capitals. Oh well, not on this forum then........................ :024: :017:
Angel Delight
19-07-2007, 22:55
Where did you learn your reiki skills?
And have you just discovered the shift key?
I have paid thousands of pounds to learn Reiki with 4 different Reiki Master Teachers dating from 2001 to 2004.
It Is Used On The Chakra's. The Energy Centres Throughout The Body And It Is About Removing Blockages And Negative Energy Replacing It With Positive Energy!
Excuse my continuing scepticism, but again, what does that actually MEAN! I mean these terms "positive" and "negative" energy seem to be buzzwords with little physical foundation, to my mind...although they are then used in context with ideas such as "removing blockages" which suggest some real, tangiable (sp?) effect.
I guess what i want to know is what [provable] physiological effect is there from Reiki ?
Hmmm this reikiki stuff sounds bogus to me.
sorry.
PikeKing
21-07-2007, 11:34
i dont know how it works, nor do i really care. i'm the worlds biggest sceptic, after doing science at uni, and always being involved in it, i have to know how everything works.
i still dont get reiki but i have seen and experienced enough of it/from it to know it does/has worked on me.
when my back was at its worst, on several occaisions i had to cancel all my clients as i couldnt stand up, lay on my back or my front, i was only comfortable in the fetal position.
i had a reiki treatment and about an hour later, it had eased off to a point that i rebooked all my clients for that evening.
thats happened more than once for me.
i have seen AD injure herself quite badly, to the point she has a really bad limp and the next day after treating herself she is back to 100% and teaching 6-7 hours of exercise classes at 100mph.
i do believe a lot of this, anything to do with healing whether its with traditional medicine and the techniques found in there or alternative therapies and medicines, is the belief it will work, plus a general positive mental attitude.
i have no faith in traditional medicine these days, all they do is give you chemicals to treat one problem which poison you in another way and physios, chiropractors have done nothing to help me, i've seen othopeadic consultants, had steroid injections the lot and nothing has helped. After my last injection, i was still off training for a year, so that injection had nothing to do with my recovery, i believe it was just time that healed me there.
all that ever has helped me is reiki and accupuncture, whether its all my mind, my mental state allowing my body to heal itself, who cares, as longs as i recover.
we are physical as well as spiritual beings, and our state of mind can hugely influence our physical health, i know with myself in particular that my state of mind effects my health, i am a really negative person in general, though during times when things in my life are going great, i have no injuries!
peoples minds can make them symptomatic of all kinds of medical conditions.
maybe when you lose faith in traditional medicine and are forced to look elsewhere your opinions will change, though to be honest i think, if you think something will work, it will, if you go in with doubts, i think you're ****ed.
that applies to everything in life.
i am not going to get into a debate on any of this, so dont bother starting, this is all of course just my opinion.
Makes a lot of sense to me that Pikey
Well,what gets me is that you know that it works ,you have a Reiki master available (when she isnt racing around doing classes!!) and you still seem to be injured a lot!!!If I was in that circumstance I'd be all over AD for treatment all the time.....you really are a muppet!!!!At least you are taking the time off and hopefully recovering physically and mentally.
And I dont know if Reiki works or not but you mentionned accupuncture that I have had regularly and that worked rather well alongside the hayfever medications I was taking at the time.(blows raspberry at Narc)
PikeKing
21-07-2007, 11:51
Well,what gets me is that you know that it works ,you have a Reiki master available (when she isnt racing around doing classes!!) and you still seem to be injured a lot!!!If I was in that circumstance I'd be all over AD for treatment all the time.....you really are a muppet!!!!
this time doesnt exist
And I know that we are (generally )a male populance on here but it is interesting to see that the 2 and 1/2 women who are posting (AD,Dusty and Pikeking) are rather openmided/in favour of it and the majority of the guys are anti Reiki or sceptical of it.Does that indicate more openmindedness on behalf of the women,that men are natural skeptics in "all that crap" as it were or that this is too few people to draw an accurate indication from ;-)
this time doesnt exist
Ah well,theres always Saturday night.She could do Reiki on you and feed you pizza at the same time....
ban.
And I know that we are (generally )a male populance on here but it is interesting to see that the 2 and 1/2 women who are posting (AD,Dusty and Pikeking) are rather openmided/in favour of it and the majority of the guys are anti Reiki or sceptical of it.Does that indicate more openmindedness on behalf of the women,that men are natural skeptics in "all that crap" as it were or that this is too few people to draw an accurate indication from ;-)
You are right, I think women are more open minded and I am all in favour of it. I think it sounds very interesting. I lost faith in traditional medicine and discovered homeopathy so my opinions changed, and I agree with PikeKing 'if you think something will work, it will, if you go in with doubts, i think you're ****ed'
the block
21-07-2007, 14:43
i look at this way:
imagine yourself up in space (we all believe in space right? even if we havent been up/down/out there)
imagine seeing all the billions and billions of stars and planets and asteroids and meteorites and everything else. (stars that arent even there as they died long ago but their light is reaching us now)
imagine seeing our planet amidst all that billion-ness
now look at the vastness of our planet (relative to us)
somewhere on there - is you. so small, so insignificant (in the big picture)
this is how i view our knowledge of what is around us/the space we occupy/our existance.
if humans think that they have everything sussed out then that is just sheer indulgence in delusion.
as PK said, we are more than just a physical body although science would love to have us believe otherwise.
If we only know a little about the physical body and the way it works (ask any doctor) then how can we address the spiritual side of things with the same arrogance?
PikeKing
21-07-2007, 14:49
i like that post blockster
if humans think that they have everything sussed out then that is just sheer indulgence in delusion.Sure, but scepticism is not the same as 'thinking we have everything sussed out'. The former is the rational belief in only those things we know to be true, the later is the intellectual arrogance you allude to later.
[...]we are more than just a physical body[...]
If we only know a little about the physical body and the way it works (ask any doctor) then how can we address the spiritual side of things with the same arrogance?
Unfortunately, you're guilty of the same arrogance you decry in these sentences i.e. holding an opinion not supported by the evidence available to you: You insist on the existence of an extra-corporeal consciousness i.e. soul or spirit, despite the absence of any proof of such an entity. We know precisely nothing about the spirit (if it even exists) and the way it works yet you present its existence as fact.
Just because proof of the non-existence of an entity is not available is not a logically valid reason to believe in it. The existence of the Yellow Pixie Fairies of Bubblegum Forest has never been disproven, yet I doubt you would label my failure to believe in them as 'arrogance'.
Rational human action relies on an understanding of the things we know to be true, not the things we don't know not to be true.
[...] science would love to have us believe otherwise.
The great thing about science is that it does not want us to believe in anything. Science is a system of identifying, investigating, describing and explaining observable phenomena: It has no vested interest in which explanations are reached, only that they appropriately, accurately and logically follow from existing observations.
The religions and faiths on which new age-y treatments are commonly based are attempted explanations the nature of the universe in which we live. If the universe was observed to defy or contradict the tenets of these faiths, said tenets would be shown to be incorrect and would be discarded or amended. If the universe was observed to defy the principles of currently accepted scientific theory, no part of science itself would be discarded or amended, only the explanations at which it arrives.
BengDogg
21-07-2007, 21:58
well this is some heavy shit when you consider the post started with andy saying he was gonna take a few weeks r+r
PikeKing
21-07-2007, 22:15
yup, the usual
well this is some heavy shit when you consider the post started with andy saying he was gonna take a few weeks r+r
Yeah... On that subject.
PK: Get it done.
the block
21-07-2007, 22:59
Unfortunately, you're guilty of the same arrogance you decry in these sentences i.e. holding an opinion not supported by the evidence available to you: You insist on the existence of an extra-corporeal consciousness i.e. soul or spirit, despite the absence of any proof of such an entity. We know precisely nothing about the spirit (if it even exists) and the way it works yet you present its existence as fact.
whats your definition of proof?
The great thing about science is that it does not want us to believe in anything. Science is a system of identifying, investigating, describing and explaining observable phenomena: It has no vested interest in which explanations are reached, only that they appropriately, accurately and logically follow from existing observations.
I dont agree. There is a clear conflict between science and religion which is indicative of the vested interest you negated above.
I suppose we can say that there has always been a form of science (as you have defined it above) throughout history.
If the universe was observed to defy or contradict the tenets of these faiths, said tenets would be shown to be incorrect and would be discarded or amended. If the universe was observed to defy the principles of currently accepted scientific theory, no part of science itself would be discarded or amended, only the explanations at which it arrives.
So truth isnt absolute as it is liable to change. Which affects
Rational human action relies on an understanding of the things we know to be true, not the things we don't know not to be true.
(I do agree with your statement) Rational human action is relative.
The problem is that humans arent flawless and neither is their thinking, which means that there is only so far we can go.
So now what we are really looking at is one's world view of things.
e.g. Sun rises. I see it. I think "God made the sun rise" Someone else sees the same thing and thinks "well in accordance with my 5 senses this is why it rises". world view.
Ultimately (and you may think my thinking is flawed) the ultimate truth is that we will all die. It is from that point onwards that other issues come into play.
Or even more simply - forget the spirit bit if you want as it is totally dependant on the purpose of life as one understands it or misunderstands it. There is more to life/the world than what we know hence space and deep sea exploration which was the point I was making.
My world view is that there are things that we can understand using our 5 senses. Then there are things outside of the realms of the 5 senses which are understood by the intellect. Then there are things which are outside of the realm of the intellect which can be understood only by 1 of 2 possible methods:
a) divine guidance
b) theorizing
whats your definition of proof?
I dunno... In the original context, how about, "The evidence or argument that validates a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions."
What evidence or argument do you have that validates your assertion as to the existence of the human soul?
I dont agree. There is a clear conflict between science and religion which is indicative of the vested interest you negated above.
There is a conflict in the way that these two systems reach the conclusions they do i.e. faith vs. observation, and conflicts between the conclusions reached, but that still isn't to say that science has any vested interest in the conclusions it comes to: If God were to appear before us all declaring his existence and the truth proclaimed in faith X, He would become part of the scientific explanations of the nature of the universe.
So truth isnt absolute as it is liable to change.
Really? Have a go with, "Triangles have precisely three sides."
Here's another one for you:
the ultimate truth is that we will all die
...or do you mean that our perception of truth is liable to change?
(I do agree with your statement) Rational human action is relative.
The problem is that humans arent flawless and neither is their thinking, which means that there is only so far we can go.
So now what we are really looking at is one's world view of things.
Sure. The crux of the argument is, "Do we base our actions on the conclusions we draw from observation or do we base them on beliefs that exist independant of or contrary to our observations?". Even if we assume the truth of your assertion that human thinking may be fallible, my argument remains that humans are infinitely more likely to operate in an instrumentally rational manner by acting on the conclusions of their observations (flawed though they may be) than by acting, either wholly or partly, on beliefs on which observation has no bearing.
Ultimately (and you may think my thinking is flawed) the ultimate truth is that we will all die. It is from that point onwards that other issues come into play.
Or even more simply - forget the spirit bit if you want as it is totally dependant on the purpose of life as one understands it or misunderstands it. There is more to life/the world than what we know hence space and deep sea exploration which was the point I was making.
My world view is that there are things that we can understand using our 5 senses. Then there are things outside of the realms of the 5 senses which are understood by the intellect. Then there are things which are outside of the realm of the intellect which can be understood only by 1 of 2 possible methods:
a) divine guidance
b) theorizing
I'm not sure how this is relevant to the debate at hand, other than to restate your opinions.
the block
22-07-2007, 00:55
What evidence or argument do you have that validates your assertion as to the existence of the human soul?
I have faith. My source is scriptural. The next step is to scrutinise its authenticity and its content.
If God were to appear before us all declaring his existence and the truth proclaimed in faith X, He would become part of the scientific explanations of the nature of the universe.
Science can't explain God. Religion has its own explanation of the nature of the universe. it is after all a world view. often science aids this view. often science offers its own explanation/refutation.
anyway - science is just a collection of efforts to understand whats around us based on physical evidence. it is only correct if and when 'scientists' say so.
its conclusion can be wrong as you acknowledge. and there is most certainly more to life than what is observable, (as observation is dependant on the tools and methods of observation which are progressing with time,) and what a bunch of people, whose names we don't know, state as truth.
as for the rest of my post - I stated my opinions just as you stated yours.
to conclude - i don't really see the point in this debate - you jumped on a single point that i made regarding the spirit, because to you it seems irrational (as your posts have indicated). If you don't believe in it because "Mr Pordanov" hasn't endorsed it then fair enough. no skin off my nose. "Mr Pordanov" hasn't explained a billion things that happen on a daily basis and the simple lack of a stubborn/blind scientists explanation means nothing to me.
If i say to you that there is Paradise or Hell after death/the soul exists, you will say what's your proof? I will say the proof awaits you upon death. Just as the people before us didn't know many things due to not discovering them, we learn that time brings the proofs, until then, for some things there is only faith. for everything else there is mastercard.
whats your definition of proof?
I dont agree. There is a clear conflict between science and religion which is indicative of the vested interest you negated above.
wheres the proof that any religion exists/is true
PikeKing
22-07-2007, 10:23
wheres the proof that any religion exists/is true
in the hearts of those that believe in it and draw strength from it.
wheres the proof that any religion exists
LOL. Chi I grant you "ABSURD POSTER OF THE MONTH AWARD"
I have faith. My source is scriptural. The next step is to scrutinise its authenticity and its content.
Sure, but I have difficulty with the idea that a scriptural source would constitute proof or evidence of anything apart from the objects of your faith. Would you believe that the earth was created in six days if your scriptural source said so?
The other difficulty I have is with the arbitrary way in which theists tend to regard the scriptures of their own religion as divine proof of their beliefs yet refuse to acknowledge the contents of the scriptures of other religions. Assuming you are a proponent of a single religion, what qualities differentiate the scriptures you regard as evidence from those you do not?
Science can't explain God. Religion has its own explanation of the nature of the universe. it is after all a world view. often science aids this view. often science offers its own explanation/refutation.
Sure, but neither can science explain the origin of the Big Bang. The difference between science and religion is that science makes no claims to understand phenomena beyond the limits of observation or theory (scientific theory being the extension of observation), while religion does.
As per my earlier statement: If God were observable (within the criteria normally used for observation), His existence would become part of the scientific understanding of the universe. That an explanation of His origin or nature could not be discerned at a given time would not present a problem for science: The scientific Theory of God would simply state that, "no explanation of His origin or nature appear to be available at this time."
anyway - science is just a collection of efforts to understand whats around us based on physical evidence.
Broadly, yes.
it is only correct if and when 'scientists' say so.
its conclusion can be wrong as you acknowledge. and there is most certainly more to life than what is observable, (as observation is dependant on the tools and methods of observation which are progressing with time,) and what a bunch of people, whose names we don't know, state as truth.
Not at all.
Science is not some alternative religion with an alternative set of high priests dictating unprovable and closed-minded dogma to the believing masses but, as per my last post, a system of identifying, investigating, describing and explaining observable phenomena. What is correct, according to science, is the theories and conclusion reached following the proper application of this system. Although one might expect 'scientists' (however they might be defined) to understand the proper application of science and therefore have a good knowledge of what is scientifically correct in their specific area of speciality, 'scientific truth' should never be equated to 'what scientists say is true'. Scientists can state anything and anybody can state good science.
Plenty of scientists are also theists. That these people state the existence of God does not make Him part of established science.
[...] as for the rest of my post - I stated my opinions just as you stated yours.
Not really. We are debating the nature and criteria of truth, not those things that we hold to be true. To state my opinions in the same way that you stated yours would be for me to have stated that:
I hold religion and other such faiths as the one great curse of the fallibility of the human mind: Our intellectual arrogance, emotional weakness, self-righteousness, self-aggrandisement, self-pity, unconsciousness ignorance, angry apathy and so many other human failings rolled into a singularity that prays (haha...) on the minds of the weak and the ignorant and the downtrodden and the damaged. In short, I hold religion as the product of all that is weak and perversed and debased in mankind.
...but as per my earlier post, that wouldn't really have contributed to the debate at hand.
to conclude - i don't really see the point in this debate - you jumped on a single point that i made regarding the spirit, because to you it seems irrational (as your posts have indicated). If you don't believe in it because "Mr Pordanov" hasn't endorsed it then fair enough. no skin off my nose. "Mr Pordanov" hasn't explained a billion things that happen on a daily basis and the simple lack of a stubborn/blind scientists explanation means nothing to me.
Not true: We have been debating the criteria the should be logically used in order for us to hold and act on a belief, not the existence of spirit, which doesn't bother me much in any case. If any of my sensibilities were offended by the opinions you presented, they are nicely summed up in your paragraph above i.e. Your willingness to criticise science despite your complete and fundamental failing to understand it and the principles on which it operates.
So...Andy is injured then........?
PikeKing
22-07-2007, 12:25
who is Andy?
HardcoreSportsTraining
22-07-2007, 12:33
HAHAHAHAHAHA I just found this!
http://www.clubvibes.com/images/members/135752.jpg
who is Andy?
Can't remember.....
HardcoreSportsTraining
22-07-2007, 16:02
OH FFS BLOCK, YOU'VE SPENT THE LAST 25 MINUTES TYPING THAT REPLY, GET ON WITH IT! :D :D :banana:
HardcoreSportsTraining
22-07-2007, 16:02
Yeah. I know how to get round the anti-caps filter. Mother****ers betta recognise.
PikeKing
22-07-2007, 16:07
OH FFS BLOCK, YOU'VE SPENT THE LAST 25 MINUTES TYPING THAT REPLY, GET ON WITH IT! :D :D :banana:
hmmm
the block
22-07-2007, 16:13
OH FFS BLOCK, YOU'VE SPENT THE LAST 25 MINUTES TYPING THAT REPLY, GET ON WITH IT! :D :D :banana:
lmao!!! :D
multi-tasking :)
HardcoreSportsTraining
22-07-2007, 16:30
My god it better be good...
Interesting choice of words ;)
HardcoreSportsTraining
22-07-2007, 16:38
It's gotta be an hour now. Just post something. Anything, then I can go to bed.
the block
22-07-2007, 16:43
Sure, but I have difficulty with the idea that a scriptural source would constitute proof or evidence of anything apart from the objects of your faith. Would you believe that the earth was created in six days if your scriptural source said so?
The other difficulty I have is with the arbitrary way in which theists tend to regard the scriptures of their own religion as divine proof of their beliefs yet refuse to acknowledge the contents of the scriptures of other religions.Assuming you are a proponent of a single religion, what qualities differentiate the scriptures you regard as evidence from those you do not?
As I am sure you are aware, if scripture says xyz, then the follower of that faith believes it. Your having "difficulty" can be remedied by thinking along certain lines, briefly (and this is my last post on this as this is a very long topic. If you have further questions then PM me and I can direct you towards reading material. If however you just want to debate for the sake of debating then... :044: )
Footprints in desert = something passed that way. The footprints didn't appear there by themselves. Cause and effect.
Our existance demands a cause. Why? Because we are the footprints in the desert. If i typed this post and then claimed it appeared by itself I would quite rightly be called silly and irrational. Since we didn't create ourselves and this gigantic universe didn't appear by itself, logic dictates that there was a creator, since we are creation and created. Some say that this was due to the big bang, which doesnt explain why there is a perfect balance in the universe, out of total utter chaos and anarchy came perfection. A design necessitates a designer. As Edwin Conklin said "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
It also doesnt make sense to trace the chain of causes and effects to the big bang and stop there. Anyway, the big bang happened in space. Where did space come from? space needs somewhere to exist in. who created space? You can't have space in nothing-ness. This leads to an important point, without which many other things cannot be understood, there are limits to one's understanding. The intellect is finite, we are finite.
How and why are not the same thing and science generally does a brilliant job of answering 'how' (according to my understanding as a layman who has not studied science)
If you just woke up in a room tomorrow, a room you have never been in before, there are lots of other people, there are no exits that you can see except one door through which you see people walking out but no-one walks back in, and lots of things in the room, perfectly arranged, a system of various processes that you can see working. Would you say you just appeared there? Something must have put you there.
If we agree on this point then the next step is simply who put us here? and why?
This room you have just woken up in is this world.
It would be extremely unfair of whoever put you in the room to leave you without some guidance as to your affair. So, looking around, in this room there are many things lying around, amongst which are some leaflets and books etc... Some of these books have instructions in them. You pick up a few and start reading. Some make more sense than others, some are difficult to read, others not so. Some have difficult instructions in them, some have easier instructions. Perhaps you can see a gradual approach to the instructions, making things easier. Perhaps you can't. Out of these 'manuals' one claims to be from God. The others don't make that claim although God is mentioned in them as are some apparant instructions from God.
These books all refer to various things in the room that you are in. We can call them clues. So from one book you can see "oh, ok this book said this and there it is over there in that corner, but who wrote this? there are just signs that "somebody" else has placed these things for me to discover" another book gives you more info and much more detailed insights into the room.
Lets say that some of these books have symbols on them which, due to your intellect, you can deduce to be indicative of a chronological order. So book A came at 123, book B at 345 and book C at 678 etc... Out of all these books one "seems" to be more plausible and rational than the others. It refers to incidents in the other books and by your reasoning you deduce that this book came after the others, as perhaps indicated by the symbols. This also happens to be the same book that has more detailed clues and insights than the others.
So you end up thinking about your situation how you got there, what to do, and you like one book as it has some good insights into your situation but then there is another book which seems better and more correct. With further research, going by the clues in the seemingly better book, you finally become convinced, using your intellect which you have been given , that it is this book which is the guidebook that you are meant to be reading and following. Others may disagree but based on your research and conclusions you are convinced. Yet, others are just sitting around doing nothing or playing, not concerned about the eventual passage through the 'door of no return'.
Upon walking through that door the conclusion that your intellect has led you towards is either proved true or false. This is all dependant on having a sound intellect. This is where faith steps in.
Just as a mathematical question can only have 1 answer, there can only be one right religion.
Essentially, as I mentioned earlier, I look at 2 things: The authenticity of the scripture and its content. Part of the content of the scripture I believe in (The Qur'an) validates scientific discovery. Not the other way round. Its content can be verified back to 1 source (in this case a man, chosen to convey and explain the guidance in practical terms) with unbroken chains of transmission, and a look at the content will either persuade one or it won't.
The scientific Theory of God would simply state that, "no explanation of His origin or nature appear to be available at this time."
I agree with that 100%, That's a great statement, except the "available at this time" bit. I believe God to be:
One, Self Sufficient and not in need of anyone or anything, Was not born and does not give birth, and has no equal or partner.
This is non-exhaustive as it is impossible to define the infinite.
We have been debating the criteria the should be logically used in order for us to hold and act on a belief, not the existence of spirit, which doesn't bother me much in any case. If any of my sensibilities were offended by the opinions you presented, they are nicely summed up in your paragraph above i.e. Your willingness to criticise science despite your complete and fundamental failing to understand it and the principles on which it operates.
The best thing for you to do, based on your sound conclusion: despite your complete and fundamental failing to understand it and the principles on which it operates is to simply write an article explaining the correct understanding, a sort of educational piece for the layman like me since:
a) this seems to be a topic you are passionate about
b) have more than a passing interest in
PikeKing
22-07-2007, 16:45
i cant be ****ed to read all this crap anymore
HardcoreSportsTraining
22-07-2007, 16:47
As I am sure you are aware, if scripture says xyz, then the follower of that faith believes it. Your having "difficulty" can be remedied by thinking along certain lines, briefly (and this is my last post on this as this is a very long topic. If you have further questions then PM me and I can direct you towards reading material. If however you just want to debate for the sake of debating then... :044: )
Footprints in desert = something passed that way. The footprints didn't appear there by themselves. Cause and effect.
Our existance demands a cause. Why? Because we are the footprints in the desert. If i typed this post and then claimed it appeared by itself I would quite rightly be called silly and irrational. Since we didn't create ourselves and this gigantic universe didn't appear by itself, logic dictates that there was a creator, since we are creation and created. Some say that this was due to the big bang, which doesnt explain why there is a perfect balance in the universe, out of total utter chaos and anarchy came perfection. A design necessitates a designer. As Edwin Conklin said "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
It also doesnt make sense to trace the chain of causes and effects to the big bang and stop there. Anyway, the big bang happened in space. Where did space come from? space needs somewhere to exist in. who created space? You can't have space in nothing-ness. This leads to an important point, without which many other things cannot be understood, there are limits to one's understanding. The intellect is finite, we are finite.
How and why are not the same thing and science generally does a brilliant job of answering 'how' (according to my understanding as a layman who has not studied science)
If you just woke up in a room tomorrow, a room you have never been in before, there are lots of other people, there are no exits that you can see except one door through which you see people walking out but no-one walks back in, and lots of things in the room, perfectly arranged, a system of various processes that you can see working. Would you say you just appeared there? Something must have put you there.
If we agree on this point then the next step is simply who put us here? and why?
This room you have just woken up in is this world.
It would be extremely unfair of whoever put you in the room to leave you without some guidance as to your affair. So, looking around, in this room there are many things lying around, amongst which are some leaflets and books etc... Some of these books have instructions in them. You pick up a few and start reading. Some make more sense than others, some are difficult to read, others not so. Some have difficult instructions in them, some have easier instructions. Perhaps you can see a gradual approach to the instructions, making things easier. Perhaps you can't. Out of these 'manuals' one claims to be from God. The others don't make that claim although God is mentioned in them as are some apparant instructions from God.
These books all refer to various things in the room that you are in. We can call them clues. So from one book you can see "oh, ok this book said this and there it is over there in that corner, but who wrote this? there are just signs that "somebody" else has placed these things for me to discover" another book gives you more info and much more detailed insights into the room.
Lets say that some of these books have symbols on them which, due to your intellect, you can deduce to be indicative of a chronological order. So book A came at 123, book B at 345 and book C at 678 etc... Out of all these books one "seems" to be more plausible and rational than the others. It refers to incidents in the other books and by your reasoning you deduce that this book came after the others, as perhaps indicated by the symbols. This also happens to be the same book that has more detailed clues and insights than the others.
So you end up thinking about your situation how you got there, what to do, and you like one book as it has some good insights into your situation but then there is another book which seems better and more correct. With further research, going by the clues in the seemingly better book, you finally become convinced, using your intellect which you have been given , that it is this book which is the guidebook that you are meant to be reading and following. Others may disagree but based on your research and conclusions you are convinced. Yet, others are just sitting around doing nothing or playing, not concerned about the eventual passage through the 'door of no return'.
Upon walking through that door the conclusion that your intellect has led you towards is either proved true or false. This is all dependant on having a sound intellect. This is where faith steps in.
Just as a mathematical question can only have 1 answer, there can only be one right religion.
Essentially, as I mentioned earlier, I look at 2 things: The authenticity of the scripture and its content. Part of the content of the scripture I believe in (The Qur'an) validates scientific discovery. Not the other way round. Its content can be verified back to 1 source (in this case a man, chosen to convey and explain the guidance in practical terms) with unbroken chains of transmission, and a look at the content will either persuade one or it won't.
I agree with that 100%, That's a great statement, except the "available at this time" bit. I believe God to be:
One, Self Sufficient and not in need of anyone or anything, Was not born and does not give birth, and has no equal or partner.
This is non-exhaustive as it is impossible to define the infinite.
The best thing for you to do, based on your sound conclusion: is to simply write an article explaining the correct understanding, a sort of educational piece for the layman like me since:
a) this seems to be a topic you are passionate about
b) have more than a passing interest in
Boring! ;)
As I am sure you are aware, if scripture says xyz, then the follower of that faith believes it. Your having "difficulty" can be remedied by thinking along certain lines, briefly (and this is my last post on this as this is a very long topic. If you have further questions then PM me and I can direct you towards reading material. If however you just want to debate for the sake of debating then... :044: )
Footprints in desert = something passed that way. The footprints didn't appear there by themselves. Cause and effect.
Our existance demands a cause. Why? Because we are the footprints in the desert. If i typed this post and then claimed it appeared by itself I would quite rightly be called silly and irrational. Since we didn't create ourselves and this gigantic universe didn't appear by itself, logic dictates that there was a creator, since we are creation and created. Some say that this was due to the big bang, which doesnt explain why there is a perfect balance in the universe, out of total utter chaos and anarchy came perfection. A design necessitates a designer. As Edwin Conklin said "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
It also doesnt make sense to trace the chain of causes and effects to the big bang and stop there. Anyway, the big bang happened in space. Where did space come from? space needs somewhere to exist in. who created space? You can't have space in nothing-ness. This leads to an important point, without which many other things cannot be understood, there are limits to one's understanding. The intellect is finite, we are finite.
How and why are not the same thing and science generally does a brilliant job of answering 'how' (according to my understanding as a layman who has not studied science)
If you just woke up in a room tomorrow, a room you have never been in before, there are lots of other people, there are no exits that you can see except one door through which you see people walking out but no-one walks back in, and lots of things in the room, perfectly arranged, a system of various processes that you can see working. Would you say you just appeared there? Something must have put you there.
If we agree on this point then the next step is simply who put us here? and why?
This room you have just woken up in is this world.
It would be extremely unfair of whoever put you in the room to leave you without some guidance as to your affair. So, looking around, in this room there are many things lying around, amongst which are some leaflets and books etc... Some of these books have instructions in them. You pick up a few and start reading. Some make more sense than others, some are difficult to read, others not so. Some have difficult instructions in them, some have easier instructions. Perhaps you can see a gradual approach to the instructions, making things easier. Perhaps you can't. Out of these 'manuals' one claims to be from God. The others don't make that claim although God is mentioned in them as are some apparant instructions from God.
These books all refer to various things in the room that you are in. We can call them clues. So from one book you can see "oh, ok this book said this and there it is over there in that corner, but who wrote this? there are just signs that "somebody" else has placed these things for me to discover" another book gives you more info and much more detailed insights into the room.
Lets say that some of these books have symbols on them which, due to your intellect, you can deduce to be indicative of a chronological order. So book A came at 123, book B at 345 and book C at 678 etc... Out of all these books one "seems" to be more plausible and rational than the others. It refers to incidents in the other books and by your reasoning you deduce that this book came after the others, as perhaps indicated by the symbols. This also happens to be the same book that has more detailed clues and insights than the others.
So you end up thinking about your situation how you got there, what to do, and you like one book as it has some good insights into your situation but then there is another book which seems better and more correct. With further research, going by the clues in the seemingly better book, you finally become convinced, using your intellect which you have been given , that it is this book which is the guidebook that you are meant to be reading and following. Others may disagree but based on your research and conclusions you are convinced. Yet, others are just sitting around doing nothing or playing, not concerned about the eventual passage through the 'door of no return'.
Upon walking through that door the conclusion that your intellect has led you towards is either proved true or false. This is all dependant on having a sound intellect. This is where faith steps in.
Just as a mathematical question can only have 1 answer, there can only be one right religion.
Essentially, as I mentioned earlier, I look at 2 things: The authenticity of the scripture and its content. Part of the content of the scripture I believe in (The Qur'an) validates scientific discovery. Not the other way round. Its content can be verified back to 1 source (in this case a man, chosen to convey and explain the guidance in practical terms) with unbroken chains of transmission, and a look at the content will either persuade one or it won't.
I agree with that 100%, That's a great statement, except the "available at this time" bit. I believe God to be:
One, Self Sufficient and not in need of anyone or anything, Was not born and does not give birth, and has no equal or partner.
This is non-exhaustive as it is impossible to define the infinite.
The best thing for you to do, based on your sound conclusion: is to simply write an article explaining the correct understanding, a sort of educational piece for the layman like me since:
a) this seems to be a topic you are passionate about
b) have more than a passing interest in
TL/FWI
(sorry but I always wanted to post that)
This too will be my last (significant) post on this. It hasn't been an unintersting debate, but this takes a long time and I have stuff to do.
As I am sure you are aware, if scripture says xyz, then the follower of that faith believes it. Your having "difficulty" can be remedied by thinking along certain lines, briefly (and this is my last post on this as this is a very long topic. If you have further questions then PM me and I can direct you towards reading material. If however you just want to debate for the sake of debating then... :044: )
Footprints in desert = something passed that way. The footprints didn't appear there by themselves. Cause and effect.
Our existance demands a cause. Why? Because we are the footprints in the desert. If i typed this post and then claimed it appeared by itself I would quite rightly be called silly and irrational. Since we didn't create ourselves and this gigantic universe didn't appear by itself, logic dictates that there was a creator, since we are creation and created.
OK. So far, so obvious.
Some say that this was due to the big bang, which doesnt explain why there is a perfect balance in the universe, out of total utter chaos and anarchy came perfection. A design necessitates a designer. As Edwin Conklin said "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
I'm afraid this is only going to increase my original difficulty (which was centered on your criteria of 'proof' for matters of faith), because your argument for the existence of a Supreme Being appears to be two outright assumptions (in bold) and a single quote, provided without context or supporting arguments, from a late-19th/early-20th century zoologist from Ohio.
It also doesnt make sense to trace the chain of causes and effects to the big bang and stop there. Anyway, the big bang happened in space. Where did space come from? space needs somewhere to exist in. who created space? You can't have space in nothing-ness. This leads to an important point, without which many other things cannot be understood, there are limits to one's understanding. The intellect is finite, we are finite.
It makes perfect sense to trace the chain of cause and effects only as far as the Big Bang if that is the limit to which available theory and observation can take us, particularly if the alternative is simply pulling an explanation out of your ass.
How and why are not the same thing and science generally does a brilliant job of answering 'how' (according to my understanding as a layman who has not studied science)
One of the problems with religion, a sceptic might argue, is that it attempts to assign reason where there is only cause. Only in highly subjective issues are 'why' and 'how' different.
If you just woke up in a room tomorrow, a room you have never been in before, there are lots of other people, there are no exits that you can see except one door through which you see people walking out but no-one walks back in, and lots of things in the room, perfectly arranged, a system of various processes that you can see working. Would you say you just appeared there? Something must have put you there.
If we agree on this point then the next step is simply who put us here? and why?
This room you have just woken up in is this world.
It would be extremely unfair of whoever put you in the room to leave you without some guidance as to your affair. So, looking around, in this room there are many things lying around, amongst which are some leaflets and books etc... Some of these books have instructions in them. You pick up a few and start reading. Some make more sense than others, some are difficult to read, others not so. Some have difficult instructions in them, some have easier instructions. Perhaps you can see a gradual approach to the instructions, making things easier. Perhaps you can't. Out of these 'manuals' one claims to be from God. The others don't make that claim although God is mentioned in them as are some apparant instructions from God.
These books all refer to various things in the room that you are in. We can call them clues. So from one book you can see "oh, ok this book said this and there it is over there in that corner, but who wrote this? there are just signs that "somebody" else has placed these things for me to discover" another book gives you more info and much more detailed insights into the room.
Lets say that some of these books have symbols on them which, due to your intellect, you can deduce to be indicative of a chronological order. So book A came at 123, book B at 345 and book C at 678 etc... Out of all these books one "seems" to be more plausible and rational than the others. It refers to incidents in the other books and by your reasoning you deduce that this book came after the others, as perhaps indicated by the symbols. This also happens to be the same book that has more detailed clues and insights than the others.
So you end up thinking about your situation how you got there, what to do, and you like one book as it has some good insights into your situation but then there is another book which seems better and more correct. With further research, going by the clues in the seemingly better book, you finally become convinced, using your intellect which you have been given , that it is this book which is the guidebook that you are meant to be reading and following. Others may disagree but based on your research and conclusions you are convinced. Yet, others are just sitting around doing nothing or playing, not concerned about the eventual passage through the 'door of no return'.
Upon walking through that door the conclusion that your intellect has led you towards is either proved true or false. This is all dependant on having a sound intellect. This is where faith steps in.
I think I could have saved you some time there.
"Given my empirical observations on the world, my readings of the Qur'an and my inability to fully understand the consequences of my death, I am happy to use faith as the basis for some of my actions."
Just as a mathematical question can only have 1 answer, there can only be one right religion.
Mathematical equations can have more than one answer e.g. 4^0.5 = 2 or -2.
They can also have no answers e.g. (-1)^0.5 (kinda).
They can also have answers that make no sense to anybody apart from crazy people e.g. e^i(pi) = i^0.5
A useful allegory for religion indeed. :023:
Its content can be verified back to 1 source (in this case a man, chosen to convey and explain the guidance in practical terms) with unbroken chains of transmission, and a look at the content will either persuade one or it won't.
Yup, which why we are still having this debate, which at its core is quite simple:
"Should our actions be guided solely by the conclusions we draw from observable evidence or should we allow them to be partly or wholely guided by faith."
The best thing for you to do, based on your sound conclusion is to simply write an article explaining the correct understanding, a sort of educational piece for the layman like me since:
a) this seems to be a topic you are passionate about
b) have more than a passing interest in
Fortunately for all proponents of science, there are smarter people with a greater expertise in this area who have already done this to death.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=scientific+method&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Wow great debate, You should stay around more Scouge!
the block
23-07-2007, 05:37
only a 'lets wind things up' post :)
As I am sure you are aware, if scripture says xyz, then the follower of that faith believes it. Your having "difficulty" can be remedied by thinking along certain lines, briefly (and this is my last post on this as this is a very long topic. If you have further questions then PM me and I can direct you towards reading material. If however you just want to debate for the sake of debating then... )
Footprints in desert = something passed that way. The footprints didn't appear there by themselves. Cause and effect.
Our existance demands a cause. Why? Because we are the footprints in the desert. If i typed this post and then claimed it appeared by itself I would quite rightly be called silly and irrational. Since we didn't create ourselves and this gigantic universe didn't appear by itself, logic dictates that there was a creator, since we are creation and created.
OK. So far, so obvious.
As long as that is obvious then we need not really go much further. From hereon it's your own mode of transport/religion (or lack of) dependant on how inquisitive one is and level of concern.
....your argument for the existence of a Supreme Being appears to be two outright assumptions (in bold) and a single quote....
no, my argument is the bit posted above. Buildings don't appear out of nowhere, they are built by builders.
If you just woke up in a room tomorrow, a room you have never been in before, there are lots of other people, there are no exits that you can see except one door through which you see people walking out but no-one walks back in, and lots of things in the room, perfectly arranged, a system of various processes that you can see working. Would you say you just appeared there? Something must have put you there.
If we agree on this point then the next step is simply who put us here? and why?
This room you have just woken up in is this world.
It would be extremely unfair of whoever put you in the room to leave you without some guidance as to your affair. So, looking around, in this room there are many things lying around, amongst which are some leaflets and books etc... Some of these books have instructions in them. You pick up a few and start reading. Some make more sense than others, some are difficult to read, others not so. Some have difficult instructions in them, some have easier instructions. Perhaps you can see a gradual approach to the instructions, making things easier. Perhaps you can't. Out of these 'manuals' one claims to be from God. The others don't make that claim although God is mentioned in them as are some apparant instructions from God.
These books all refer to various things in the room that you are in. We can call them clues. So from one book you can see "oh, ok this book said this and there it is over there in that corner, but who wrote this? there are just signs that "somebody" else has placed these things for me to discover" another book gives you more info and much more detailed insights into the room.
Lets say that some of these books have symbols on them which, due to your intellect, you can deduce to be indicative of a chronological order. So book A came at 123, book B at 345 and book C at 678 etc... Out of all these books one "seems" to be more plausible and rational than the others. It refers to incidents in the other books and by your reasoning you deduce that this book came after the others, as perhaps indicated by the symbols. This also happens to be the same book that has more detailed clues and insights than the others.
So you end up thinking about your situation how you got there, what to do, and you like one book as it has some good insights into your situation but then there is another book which seems better and more correct. With further research, going by the clues in the seemingly better book, you finally become convinced, using your intellect which you have been given , that it is this book which is the guidebook that you are meant to be reading and following. Others may disagree but based on your research and conclusions you are convinced. Yet, others are just sitting around doing nothing or playing, not concerned about the eventual passage through the 'door of no return'.
Upon walking through that door the conclusion that your intellect has led you towards is either proved true or false. This is all dependant on having a sound intellect. This is where faith steps in.
I think I could have saved you some time there.
"Given my empirical observations on the world, my readings of the Qur'an and my inability to fully understand the consequences of my death, I am happy to use faith as the basis for some of my actions."
You could have, but then you would have assumed that you are the only person reading this thread. Not everybody thinks like you do.
Just as a mathematical question can only have 1 answer, there can only be one right religion.
2+2 = 4, 1+1 = 2 etc...
Mathematical equations can have more than one answer e.g. 4^0.5 = 2 or -2.
They can also have no answers e.g. (-1)^0.5 (kinda).
They can also have answers that make no sense to anybody apart from crazy people e.g. e^i(pi) = i^0.5
A useful allegory for religion indeed.
they can also have no more than 1 answer. 2+2 = 4, 1+1 = 2 etc...
Its content can be verified back to 1 source (in this case a man, chosen to convey and explain the guidance in practical terms) with unbroken chains of transmission, and a look at the content will either persuade one or it won't.
Yup, which why we are still having this debate, which at its core is quite simple:
"Should our actions be guided solely by the conclusions we draw from observable evidence or should we allow them to be partly or wholely guided by faith."
The answer to this, as you know, is specific to the individual and not something to be dictated, debated yes, but not dictated. There is a reason, after all, why a believer is called a believer.
*disclaimer - there is the possibility that this post was not written by me but appeared by itself, with capitals, smilies and all, for no reason whatsoever, ;)
Angel Delight
27-07-2007, 08:53
WOW it's mind blowing! The religious debate has been a fascinating read. Much more interesting, than the original "Time out" thread.
BengDogg
27-07-2007, 10:12
WOW it's mind blowing! The religious debate has been a fascinating read. Much more interesting, than the original "Time out" thread.
Yet it became probably the most off topic thread in the world EVER!!!!
PikeKing
30-07-2007, 22:33
half way baby
Yea ,but are you feeling better/is reiki working?
PikeKing
30-07-2007, 22:41
shoulder is definately better than it was
PikeKing
30-07-2007, 22:41
though i am probably, actually going to wait until the 1st of september
PikeKing
30-07-2007, 22:46
2021
PikeKing
30-07-2007, 22:52
good god!
good god!
Please,just call me Tone,no need to be so formal...
PikeKing
07-08-2007, 18:41
had a hot stone massage, was good, levator scapular was like a bloody guitar string as was the rest of the rotator cuff on the right.
BengDogg
07-08-2007, 20:20
Which string was it like? The G perchance?
PikeKing
07-08-2007, 20:25
Which string was it like? The G perchance?
yup thats the one
PikeKing
16-08-2007, 23:31
I am ****ing awesome
Is this one of those positive-thinking self-help approaches?
PikeKing
17-08-2007, 00:14
its a public health announcement
Angel Delight
17-08-2007, 08:36
Lets go back to the deeply religious debate, far more interesting than this time off stuff (yawn)
Is this one of those positive-thinking self-help approaches?
Well it aint working on me if it is...Anyway....*sings*When will I see you again?When will we share precious moments?*ends song*
Well back the religion LOL.
I was brought up a catholic but i just think religion isnot something we should take seriously. If anything it has caused more wars than anything else - Crusades, Israel/Palestine, Recent terror attacks etc.
If you look at religion if someone told you a similar story you would laugh in their face and think they were mad - looking at Christianity (religion i am most familiar with) -
-A man was born to a virgin mother
-The fatherless man came back from the dead after being dead and buried for 3 days
-40 days later this same fatherless man went up a mountain and went up in to the sky
-If you whisper your thoughts privately to the fatherless man and his 'father' - who is also the same person (also some other dude called the holy spirit) he may act upon them. He can also hear everybody elses in the world too.
-If you do good or bad he sees everything everyone does. You may be rewarded or punished when you die. Also if bad things happen to you when your alive it may be because the fatherless man is punishing you
-Bread and wine if blessed by a priest become the body and blood of this same man.
Now for one second forgetting what you know, if someone came up to you and told you that what would you think?
PikeKing
18-08-2007, 09:30
yup sounds like a load of bollocks eh
Now for one second forgetting what you know, if someone came up to you and told you that what would you think?
That David Icke was in da house.Good post Ocaz.
the block
18-08-2007, 20:43
Well back the religion LOL.
I was brought up a catholic but i just think religion isnot something we should take seriously. If anything it has caused more wars than anything else - Crusades, Israel/Palestine, Recent terror attacks etc.
If you look at religion if someone told you a similar story you would laugh in their face and think they were mad - looking at Christianity (religion i am most familiar with) -
-A man was born to a virgin mother
-The fatherless man came back from the dead after being dead and buried for 3 days
-40 days later this same fatherless man went up a mountain and went up in to the sky
-If you whisper your thoughts privately to the fatherless man and his 'father' - who is also the same person (also some other dude called the holy spirit) he may act upon them. He can also hear everybody elses in the world too.
-If you do good or bad he sees everything everyone does. You may be rewarded or punished when you die. Also if bad things happen to you when your alive it may be because the fatherless man is punishing you
-Bread and wine if blessed by a priest become the body and blood of this same man.
Now for one second forgetting what you know, if someone came up to you and told you that what would you think?
greed for power,oil and wealth has caused plenty of wars.
your post is critical of issues of creed, which are specific to each religion.
if one can believe that God created the human being and can create things from nothing, then a child being born to a virgin, whilst amazing as far as our experience is concerned, is perfectly within God's abilities.
as for being dead and coming back alive - if being brought to life from nothing is possible then surely being resurrected after death is simpler and easier (according to our logic, whereas nothing is hard for God to do, all is equally easy)
as for hearing thoughts etc... there are sounds we cannot hear, some we can hear with equipment and so on. dogs have better hearing than us. as to what i understand, if God created all these different creatures with different abilities, some of which are just astounding, then God's abilities are even more astounding.
as far as i am concerned - there are enough signs in ones own existence that God exists. The key to understanding is: understanding ones mis-understanding of God. Or understanding that just like the pen cannot express the ecstasy of initmate contact and the taste of honey, God cannot be understood as God is, but has to be understood within the confines of our existence, whilst knowing he is outside of any confines.
the 3 in 1 issue i don't get myself. nor the bread and wine, and consumption of them as blood and flesh as a symbol of love, gratitude and servitude. I am not Christian. A Christian would better shed light on these aspects.
anyway - life sucks. as tony montana said "Is this what its all about?"
a question i'm sure we have all asked ourselves.
http://agrandsimanmag.persiangig.com/film-review/tony%20montana.jpg
greed for power,oil and wealth has caused plenty of wars.
your post is critical of issues of creed, which are specific to each religion.
I am not doubting there are other causes to war but I reckon religion has caused more problems. Look at the current climate we live in? The Bible also prescribes death by stoning as the penalty for a long list of nonviolent infractions, including idolatry, blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, disrespecting one's parents, and picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Also the bible - this supposed source of moral values contains many celebrations of genocide, in which the Hebrews, egged on by God, slaughter every last resident of an invaded city.
Yes it is critical of creed, but it is the basis for all religions.
.
if one can believe that God created the human being and can create things from nothing, then a child being born to a virgin, whilst amazing as far as our experience is concerned, is perfectly within God's abilities.
as for being dead and coming back alive - if being brought to life from nothing is possible then surely being resurrected after death is simpler and easier (according to our logic, whereas nothing is hard for God to do, all is equally easy)
That is laughable - your answer is because this god is so amazing he can basically do anything? Great response that really makes me question my stance. You know how improbable that is?
The whole god created everything is a joke, and it took just 6 days. Then to get rid of all the evil people sometime after he created a flood and saved the righteous! What a lovely person people worship.
Also how come we haven't seen any of these amazing events or other occurances that happen in the bible, Qu'ran etc in a long time? The books that depict these are historically inaccurate and written years after the events and so called miracles.
as for hearing thoughts etc... there are sounds we cannot hear, some we can hear with equipment and so on. dogs have better hearing than us. as to what i understand, if God created all these different creatures with different abilities, some of which are just astounding, then God's abilities are even more astounding.
as far as i am concerned - there are enough signs in ones own existence that God exists. The key to understanding is: understanding ones mis-understanding of God. Or understanding that just like the pen cannot express the ecstasy of initmate contact and the taste of honey, God cannot be understood as God is, but has to be understood within the confines of our existence, whilst knowing he is outside of any confines.
the 3 in 1 issue i don't get myself. nor the bread and wine, and consumption of them as blood and flesh as a symbol of love, gratitude and servitude. I am not Christian. A Christian would better shed light on these aspects.
anyway - life sucks. as tony montana said "Is this what its all about?"
a question i'm sure we have all asked ourselves.
Animals have different abilities in order to survive this is why animals evolve and change over time. It is amazing because nature is amazing but there is a science and evidence to show these changes over time.
Enough signs? What signs explain them to me please. Also how do you know the pen doesn't have those feelings? Same way you do not know there is a god, also before you come back and say the same way i do not know there is'nt a god - i am going with what i know not believe from some Priest/Prophet/Holy Book tells me that is shown in these sources to have many contradictions and improbable events.
Also life does not suck, you make life what it is - enjoy it - i know i do.
Why are we here? Well we are here to reproduce and survive that is why we feel pain - in order to warn us of potential risks that could harm and kill us. I think people look too deep and are scared of dying. You die and that's it get over it. The circle of life.
To end if you could answer me a few questions -
What if you have chosen the wrong religion? LOL! Correct me if i am wrong but i assume you follow your religion because your family do right? As this is normally the case, i was brought up a Catholic because my parents were, i have obviously since rejected this as you can see.
Why is your religion superior to say Hinduism?
If your friend came back from a mountain and said he had just been talking with an angel and had a message to spread how would you react?
What if you have chosen the wrong religion? LOL!
Why is your religion superior to say Hinduism?
That made me think of this classic Rowan Atkinson sketch,just to try to lighten the mood somewhat before it gets too outta hand....
The Devil.
Hello, nice to see you all again.
Now, as the more perceptive of you have probably realised by now, this is Hell, and I am the Devil. Good evening. You can call me Toby, if you like - we try and keep things informal here, as well as infernal. That's just a little joke.
Now, you're all here for eternity, which I hardly need tell you is a sod of a long time, so you get to know everyone pretty well by the end, but for now I'm going to have to split you up into groups. Are there any questions? Yes?
Um, no, I'm afraid we don't have any toilets... if you'd read your Bible you would have seen that it was damnation without relief. So, if you didn't go before you came then I'm afraid you're not going to enjoy yourself very much... but then, I believe that's the idea.
Right, let's split you up then.
Can you all hear me still?
CAN YOU HEAR ME AT THE RACK?
All right, off we go...
Murderers, over here. Looters and pillagers - over there please, thieves if you could join them, and bank managers...
Fornicators, if you could step forward - my God there are a lot of you. Could I split you up into adulterers and the rest? Adulterers if you could just form a line in front of that small guillotine there.
Okay...
Americans, are you here? Look, I'm sorry about this, apparently God had some fracas with your founding fathers and damned the entire race into perpetuity. He sends particular condolences to the Mormons who He realises put in a lot of work. That's the way the wafer crumbles. The Iranians, I'm afraid, can't be with us - someone's been holding them in purgatory for about nine months.
Sodomites, over there against the wall.
Atheists! Atheists? Over here please. You must be feeling a right bunch of charlies.
Okay, and Christians! Christians? Ah yes, I'm sorry, I'm afraid the Jews were right....
Just kinda puts things into a bit of perspective I feel.
That made me think of this classic Rowan Atkinson sketch,just to try to lighten the mood somewhat before it gets too outta hand....
The Devil.
Hello, nice to see you all again.
Now, as the more perceptive of you have probably realised by now, this is Hell, and I am the Devil. Good evening. You can call me Toby, if you like - we try and keep things informal here, as well as infernal. That's just a little joke.
Now, you're all here for eternity, which I hardly need tell you is a sod of a long time, so you get to know everyone pretty well by the end, but for now I'm going to have to split you up into groups. Are there any questions? Yes?
Um, no, I'm afraid we don't have any toilets... if you'd read your Bible you would have seen that it was damnation without relief. So, if you didn't go before you came then I'm afraid you're not going to enjoy yourself very much... but then, I believe that's the idea.
Right, let's split you up then.
Can you all hear me still?
CAN YOU HEAR ME AT THE RACK?
All right, off we go...
Murderers, over here. Looters and pillagers - over there please, thieves if you could join them, and bank managers...
Fornicators, if you could step forward - my God there are a lot of you. Could I split you up into adulterers and the rest? Adulterers if you could just form a line in front of that small guillotine there.
Okay...
Americans, are you here? Look, I'm sorry about this, apparently God had some fracas with your founding fathers and damned the entire race into perpetuity. He sends particular condolences to the Mormons who He realises put in a lot of work. That's the way the wafer crumbles. The Iranians, I'm afraid, can't be with us - someone's been holding them in purgatory for about nine months.
Sodomites, over there against the wall.
Atheists! Atheists? Over here please. You must be feeling a right bunch of charlies.
Okay, and Christians! Christians? Ah yes, I'm sorry, I'm afraid the Jews were right....
On that note...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufNAFVY0Ibo
LOL!
Better convert to Mormonism...
the block
19-08-2007, 20:09
I am not doubting there are other causes to war but I reckon religion has caused more problems.
you are obviously free to reckon, just as i am free to reckon that you are wrong :) reckon away!
That is laughable - your answer is because this god is so amazing he can basically do anything? Great response that really makes me question my stance. You know how improbable that is?
No I don't know, do you? tell us then please. It goes back to ones understanding of God. If ones understanding of God is that for say 6 years of his life, he had his backside wiped by a lady as he was unable to clean, feed, clothe himself, then obviously there are issues that arise. that is not my understanding of God.
You define what is hard. Then understand that it is a definition within human limits of what is hard.
The whole god created everything is a joke
Did you create yourself? create another one then.
did you create the heavens and the earth? if you didnt then who did? Frank Butcher?
Also how come we haven't seen any of these amazing events or other occurances that happen in the bible, Qu'ran etc in a long time? The books that depict these are historically inaccurate and written years after the events and so called miracles.
Whats your proof that the Qur'an is inaccurate and written years after the events? There are chains of transmission with thousands of people in them, quite unlike the preservation of any other book. It is a highly advanced science.
Ponder this:
is it not an amazing enough event for you that your origin was just an absolutely miniscule amount of fluid from which you have grown to a complete human being?
Is it not amazing enough that you can see the same amazing event being reproduced in front your eyes with new children being borne? is that not a sign in yourself?
is it not amazing enough that your heart beats without you having to care for it or instruct it? beating for 50, 60, 70 etc.... years?
is the speed at which you can think and talk and write not amazing enough?
perhaps not. if so, then there isnt really much point discussing this with you as its like telling somebody "look the suns shining" and he says "no it isnt" when it clearly is.
Animals have different abilities in order to survive this is why animals evolve and change over time. It is amazing because nature is amazing but there is a science and evidence to show these changes over time.
Why arent monkeys evolving into human beings anymore? why has it stopped?
The difference is very simple - you say evolve, I say designed. The end result is the same. What is nature? Is there such a thing? Why believe in nature and not God? Is nature the default state? If so - who set this default? If you substituted the word nature for God, whats the issue? whats the problem?
you say these changes (evolution) take place randomly and by themselves. i believe they don't and are God's work. that's it basically.
Enough signs? What signs explain them to me please. Also how do you know the pen doesn't have those feelings? Same way you do not know there is a god, also before you come back and say the same way i do not know there is'nt a god - i am going with what i know not believe from some Priest/Prophet/Holy Book tells me that is shown in these sources to have many contradictions and improbable events.
Pens have feelings? err.. ok. :017:
What I meant (read my post again) is that the pen cannot express - i.e. cannot write and do justice to the ecstasy of initmate contact or the taste of honey.
Signs are (as mentioned before in a previous post and above) that there is a design to the human being. design has a designer. simple. if you have an issue with the word design then we can use the word structure.
What you know is also from books and other people. How do you know you have a brain? Have you seen it? Or have you took this knowledge from other people? Why take knowledge from some people and not others? Selective? Is your selection exclusively correct? are you 'all knowledgeable' - you have all the knowledge that there ever was and ever will be?
no of course, so your knowledge is limited. which means that there are things that you do not know or understand.
Also life does not suck, you make life what it is - enjoy it - i know i do.
Why are we here? Well we are here to reproduce and survive that is why we feel pain - in order to warn us of potential risks that could harm and kill us. I think people look too deep and are scared of dying. You die and that's it get over it. The circle of life.
reproduction is a part of life. not the purpose of life. you don't need eyes, ears, hands, legs etc... to reproduce. so these things are extra according to your purpose of life.
Life does not suck 100% of the time for a lot of people, that much is obvious to anybody. I assume from your post that you never grow bored or tired of eating/drinking/having sex etc... you always have the same wonderful experience everytime you do something. 100% of the time. you also never get ill, sad, none of your loved ones die, nor will you die. life is great. always.
so if life is so great all the time, then obviously you do not want to lose it all now do you? are you scared of losing it all? are you scared of death which is when you will lose it all?
Life is not perfect, that is why we have a legal system (which is greatly flawed, but thats another headache) because some people make life imperfect for others.
If life isnt perfect, then what about those people that get the short end of the stick and others get away with murder (literally)? do the criminals not need to be held to account?
Following on from your train of thought - everybody should do whatever it is that they want to, regardless if it is killing people, abusing little kids, sodomising sheep, mugging grannies etc... because life is perfect for everybody and there is only the life of this world with no accountability after death.
now that is liberating!
To end if you could answer me a few questions -
What if you have chosen the wrong religion? LOL! Correct me if i am wrong but i assume you follow your religion because your family do right? As this is normally the case, i was brought up a Catholic because my parents were, i have obviously since rejected this as you can see.
Why is your religion superior to say Hinduism?
If your friend came back from a mountain and said he had just been talking with an angel and had a message to spread how would you react?
1+1 = 2. always.if you said it equalled 3 then you would be wrong. Arriving at which religion is the correct one is a journey in and of itself along with the journey of life. Its like comparing anything, you look to the origin, content and result.
I will correct you by explaining to you why I am a Muslim. I was born into a Muslim family. I didnt know anything about my religion nor did I practise it. and i can honestly say that. Looking back, I think it would have been quite difficult to make the label Muslim stick to me.
I looked around at different faiths, did theology at university, and after reading the Qur'an for a few months I became convinced in its authenticity and its content.
Why is Islam superior to Hinduism? well for a start, Hinduism would have you believe that God is a white man, with blue eyes and blond hair. Somehow that doesnt quite sit with me. maybe Hitler was a Hindu?
a proper answer to that would require an analysis of the 2 religions and that is your job (if interested and serious) not mine. I am not going to debate to win a debate. ultimately, you are free to believe what you want, and just as I don't shove it down your throat, you are not to shove what you believe, down mine. there is no sword to your neck to believe. there are however arguments which can be pondered upon. or ignored and cast aside. we all have free will.
If a friend of mine came to me with what you mentioned, (i.e. a message from God) then he would have left Islam (and I would not believe him) since it is one of the fundamentals of Islam that there are no more 'messages' from God to the human race and that the doors of religion have been sealed. The final religion being that of Islam - which means submission. Submission to God. Not man or woman.
Angel Delight
19-08-2007, 22:21
Fab quote by Einstein. Everyday and everything is a miracle in my eyes.
plateau2
20-08-2007, 12:42
reproduction is a part of life. not the purpose of life. you don't need eyes, ears, hands, legs etc... to reproduce. so these things are extra according to your purpose of life.
Not sure that's a valid point, those extra senses increase the probability of me procreating. Just like my rugged good looks LOL!
Did you create yourself?
My parents did, God wasn't involved.
is it not an amazing enough event for you that your origin was just an absolutely miniscule amount of fluid from which you have grown to a complete human being?
It's amazing, but why just because something is amazing do we have to give credit to a supreme being?
is it not amazing enough that your heart beats without you having to care for it or instruct it? beating for 50, 60, 70 etc.... years?
You do have to care for your heart with exercise, a healthy diet and not smoking. If you understand biology, it's impressive but not that amazing - it just responds to the presence of blood by contracting.
is the speed at which you can think and talk and write not amazing enough?
Practice makes perfect, when I was 2 I couldn't write at all and I learnt how to do it better and better. If God wanted me to write and talk quickly, why wasn't I born with these abilities?
Why arent monkeys evolving into human beings anymore? why has it stopped?
The selective pressures that lead to our evolution are no longer present, thus the same traits are no longer being selected for. They are continuing to evolve, just not into us.
The difference is very simple - you say evolve, I say designed. The end result is the same. What is nature? Is there such a thing? Why believe in nature and not God? Is nature the default state? If so - who set this default? If you substituted the word nature for God, whats the issue? whats the problem?
There are a number of things that are quite poorly designed, the best example being the eye, which is often held up as the pinnacle of biology by pro-creationists, but our vision is actually bad compared to what it could be if our neurons were positioned on the outside of the eyeball rather than the inside as they distort the light beams as they enter. This has occurred because this was natural for earlier "versions" of the eye so minor amendments as occur through evolution would not allow a total restructure to make it more effective. Why would a God do that?
What you know is also from books and other people. How do you know you have a brain? Have you seen it? Or have you took this knowledge from other people? Why take knowledge from some people and not others? Selective? Is your selection exclusively correct? are you 'all knowledgeable' - you have all the knowledge that there ever was and ever will be?
It is a logical extrapolation that I have a brain as one is found in a standard autopsy of all humans. This is a massive base of information that can be backed up with empirical evidence. Where is your empirical evidence for you to know there is a God?
reproduction is a part of life. not the purpose of life. you don't need eyes, ears, hands, legs etc... to reproduce. so these things are extra according to your purpose of life.
They allow us to eat food and avoid predators to make us more likely to procreate.
Life is not perfect, that is why we have a legal system (which is greatly flawed, but thats another headache) because some people make life imperfect for others.
If life isnt perfect, then what about those people that get the short end of the stick and others get away with murder (literally)? do the criminals not need to be held to account?
Following on from your train of thought - everybody should do whatever it is that they want to, regardless if it is killing people, abusing little kids, sodomising sheep, mugging grannies etc... because life is perfect for everybody and there is only the life of this world with no accountability after death.
You appear to be defeating yourself with this argument - why would a caring God allow us this freedom of action to cause others pain? If it is so uncaring, why should we worship it? Where is God whilst the little kid is being abused, having it's one chance at a life on Earth being ruined by somebody else?
Why is Islam superior to Hinduism? well for a start, Hinduism would have you believe that God is a white man, with blue eyes and blond hair. Somehow that doesnt quite sit with me. maybe Hitler was a Hindu?
So you are dismissing a religion through being racist towards its deity?
Personaly, I don't think that you need to follow any particular religion to believe in a God or higher being, call it what you like.
Religion / God has been distorted by our own interpretations in it. After all, religion is based on the writings of man and therefore is open to misinterpretation and abuse by the person recording events. Has anyone seen a book written by the hand of 'God' ?
I do think that life is amazing and that there must a force, God or whatever you want to call it, greater than our understanding that created it all in the first place. How did anything come to exist in the first place and if there was nothing beforehand, how did it all start ?
Life was created and then allowed to run free IMO and the ability to be good or evil exists within all of us. We developed the ability to reason, to think and to act upon those feelings.
the block
20-08-2007, 22:32
My parents did, God wasn't involved.
It is obvious that this can only go in 1 direction from here - who created your parents and who created theirs and theirs and theirs and so on. Until you either say they popped out of nothingness or were created by a creator who was not created.
thats the bottom line.
It's amazing, but why just because something is amazing do we have to give credit to a supreme being?
Why is it when it comes to giving credit to human beings people have no problems? Giving credit to God is just so hard for people!
You do have to care for your heart with exercise, a healthy diet and not smoking. If you understand biology, it's impressive but not that amazing - it just responds to the presence of blood by contracting.
Thats why we can make hearts out of nothing isnt it! we cannot create a single thing. we are totally dependant on what is available to us.
as i posted above: "if so, then there isnt really much point discussing this with you as its like telling somebody "look the suns shining" and he says "no it isnt" when it clearly is."
Practice makes perfect, when I was 2 I couldn't write at all and I learnt how to do it better and better. If God wanted me to write and talk quickly, why wasn't I born with these abilities?
In order that you show gratitude by knowing that you have something that you did not have before, that you were taught something that you did not know and that your existence is not one of independance but totally dependant on millions of factors - all controlled by God. These are signs by which to know God. Do you think that the one who gave you eyes to see with cannot see you? these are the sort of things that are meant to be realised.
There are a number of things that are quite poorly designed, the best example being the eye, which is often held up as the pinnacle of biology by pro-creationists, but our vision is actually bad compared to what it could be if our neurons were positioned on the outside of the eyeball rather than the inside as they distort the light beams as they enter. This has occurred because this was natural for earlier "versions" of the eye so minor amendments as occur through evolution would not allow a total restructure to make it more effective. Why would a God do that?
You say poorly designed - how about poorly understood instead. I'd like to see those that say poorly designed make one better! lol.
It is a logical extrapolation that I have a brain as one is found in a standard autopsy of all humans. This is a massive base of information that can be backed up with empirical evidence. Where is your empirical evidence for you to know there is a God?
Does not that same logic dictate that things dont appear out of nowhere by themselves? If a house popped up on your road that wasnt there before you would wonder how it got there. Thats for a house, what about all of the universe and more than 100 billion galaxies, each containg hundreds of billions of stars? Or are you saying that a house can't pop up by itself but the rest of all creation can?
Footprints in desert = something put them there. things don't appear by themselves. you know that and so do I.
You appear to be defeating yourself with this argument - why would a caring God allow us this freedom of action to cause others pain? If it is so uncaring, why should we worship it? Where is God whilst the little kid is being abused, having it's one chance at a life on Earth being ruined by somebody else?
Are you complaining about the freedom you have?
Would you rather God had made you a tree? Unable to move or do anything (except what trees do which must be really exciting) Free will is a gift. We are not created for this world. this world is created for us. Our abode is the one after death. This is not meant to be Paradise. There is a day of recompense for the little kid and all those who have been wronged, the wrong doers and the doers of good.
This world is basically a field in which one sows and reaps the harvest in the next life.
So you are dismissing a religion through being racist towards its deity?
So you don't think its racist to say that God is white and everybody else are slaves to this white God? Why does God have to have a colour?
Hinduism has a very strong caste system. the darker you are the more despicable and lowly a human being with the ultimate being the 'untouchables'. the lighter you are the closer to divinity you are. go read up on it. i come from the subcontinent and i know.
apart from the obvious flaw of the above mentioned point (I mean how do you choose what colour you are born?!) the idea of God being a man has serious complications.
who created your parents and who created theirs and theirs and theirs and so on. Until you either say they popped out of nothingness or were created by a creator who was not created.
Chuck Norris.
PikeKing
20-08-2007, 22:35
Chuck Norris.
he is my god
the block
20-08-2007, 22:36
Has anyone seen a book written by the hand of 'God' ?
What do you expect it to be like?
Life was created and then allowed to run free IMO and the ability to be good or evil exists within all of us. We developed the ability to reason, to think and to act upon those feelings.
that doesnt give the human being a purpose though.
What do you expect it to be like?
Chuck Norris.
that doesnt give the human being a purpose though.
Chuck Norris.
the block
20-08-2007, 22:38
Chuck Norris.
whilst amazingly impressive he's not quite at that level!
http://www.blogeditordmoz.com/images/Chuck_Norris_sport.jpg
the block
20-08-2007, 22:39
Chuck Norris.
I think you are chuck norris :016:
whilst amazingly impressive he's not quite at that level!
http://www.blogeditordmoz.com/images/Chuck_Norris_sport.jpg
Heretic!
I think you are chuck norris :016:
AW3somE!!!
the block
20-08-2007, 22:48
anyway - i've said all that i wanted to. If you want to believe in God or disbelieve - its your choice at the end of the day.
I believe - nothing anyone can post will make me change my mind, and I am sure its the same for some of you who don't believe.
Au revoir :039:
CheeseOnToast
20-08-2007, 22:50
i can't be arsed to read this thread but of course god doesn't ****ing exist.
It's just a grown ups version of an imaginary friend
Are you sure Phil didn't sway you there Blocky? Lol.
Where is your empirical evidence for you to know there is a God?
I can't be arsed to get into a second round of this, but I thought this was worth pointing out because:
1) It's a daft question.
2) It sums up nicely one of the fundamental issues of this type of debate.
A theist is effectively defined by their refusal to apply the same criteria of logic and proof to their religion as they do to all other aspects of their life. This is why these debates tend to take so long without any resolution: The atheist asks the theist to apply the same criteria of logic and proof to their religion as they do to all other aspects of their life. The theist refuses while restating their belief in the issue of faith in question. The cycle repeats ad nauseum.
There is no observable evidence as to the existence of a God, which is precisely why theists have faith. If observable evidence existed, faith would no longer be required.
anyway - i've said all that i wanted to. If you want to believe in God or disbelieve - its your choice at the end of the day.
I believe - nothing anyone can post will make me change my mind, and I am sure its the same for some of you who don't believe.
Au revoir :039:
I'm not trying to change your mind mate, I just don't understand it so I'm having a chat about it! :023:
I can't be arsed to get into a second round of this, but I thought this was worth pointing out because:
1) It's a daft question.
2) It sums up nicely one of the fundamental issues of this type of debate.
A theist is effectively defined by their refusal to apply the same criteria of logic and proof to their religion as they do to all other aspects of their life. This is why these debates tend to take so long without any resolution: The atheist asks the theist to apply the same criteria of logic and proof to their religion as they do to all other aspects of their life. The theist refuses while restating their belief in the issue of faith in question. The cycle repeats ad nauseum.
There is no observable evidence as to the existence of a God, which is precisely why theists have faith. If observable evidence existed, faith would no longer be required.
I can't believe that took you fifteen minutes, you suck. Chuck Norris is sending you straight to hell, and there's a future fit there.
I can't believe that took you fifteen minutes, you suck. Chuck Norris is sending you straight to hell, and there's a future fit there.
I was trying to fend off the missus with one hand, cook dinner with the other and typing the post out with my nose. Give me a break.
the block
20-08-2007, 23:03
I can't be arsed to get into a second round of this, but I thought this was worth pointing out because:
1) It's a daft question.
2) It sums up nicely one of the fundamental issues of this type of debate.
A theist is effectively defined by their refusal to apply the same criteria of logic and proof to their religion as they do to all other aspects of their life. This is why these debates tend to take so long without any resolution: The atheist asks the theist to apply the same criteria of logic and proof to their religion as they do to all other aspects of their life. The theist refuses while restating their belief in the issue of faith in question. The cycle repeats ad nauseum.
There is no observable evidence as to the existence of a God, which is precisely why theists have faith. If observable evidence existed, faith would no longer be required.
Thats a great post Scourge (no bum licking, just summed it up very well)
There are of course indications to the existence of God hence people believe.
I may or may not give you a break. I wouldn't go expecting the same leniency from Mr Norris though.
the block
20-08-2007, 23:09
I'm not trying to change your mind mate, I just don't understand it so I'm having a chat about it! :023:
Thats all cool mate, I just wanted to state it for the record. its just that:
a) this takes so looooong to write
b) major points have already been covered and only issues which are not really important to the main question (which over time has developed into - Does God exist?) remain.
After a while the debate doesnt go anywhere except focusing on the points which cant be understood unless one believes in God (imo)
Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, went back in time, and killed Amelia Earhart while she was flying over the Pacific Ocean.
Chuck Norris does not have AIDS but he gives it to people anyway.
Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead decided to punch his way out of his mother's womb. Shortly thereafter he grew a beard.
When Chuck Norris plays Oregon Trail his family does not die from cholera or dysentery, but rather roundhouse kicks to the face. He also requires no wagon, since he carries the oxen, axels, and buffalo meat on his back. He always makes it to Oregon before you.
Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
A man once asked Chuck Norris if his real name is "Charles". Chuck Norris did not respond, he simply stared at him until he exploded.
Chuck Norris recently had the idea to sell his urine as a canned beverage. We know this beverage as Red Bull.
Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying "booya".
Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
Chuck Norris once shot a German plane down with his finger, by yelling, "Bang!"
The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
After much debate, President Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima rather than the alternative of sending Chuck Norris. His reasoning? It was more "humane".
Chuck Norris often asks people to pull his finger. When they do, he roundhouses them in the abdomen. Then he farts.
Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
One of the greatest cover-ups of the last century was the fact that Hitler did not commit suicide in his bunker, but was in fact tea- bagged to death by Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris took my virginity, and he will sure as hell take yours. If you're thinking to yourself, "That's impossible, I already lost my virginity.", then you are dead
when chuck jumps into a pool, he doesnt get wet, the pool gets chuck norris
Chuck Norris won Connect Four in Three Moves.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
There are no endangered species, only animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
when the boogey man goes to sleep at night, he checks under the bed for chuck norris
chuck norris doesn't wear a watch, he decides what time it is
Halloween night -people buy chuck norris masks,and no-one opens their doors!
There are no such thing as Lesbians.
Just women who have never met Chuck Norris.
__________________
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a true story. Chuck Norris ate a baby turtle live, and when he pooped it out, it was six feet tall and had learned karate.
__________________
Chuck Norris's hand is the only hand that can beat a royal flush
Chuck Norris has counted to infinity twice!!
the block
20-08-2007, 23:59
5 out of 5 doctors recommend not pissing off Mr. T.
Before Mr. T, the alphabet only had 25 letters.
There are now over 43 fools born every minute in order to keep up with the rate at which Mr. T pities them.
Mr. T invented fools. Realizing the magnitude of his folly, he then created Pity.
Behind every great man, there is a great woman. Behind that woman is Mr. T.
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/ultimate+showdown
better with the subtitles on
the block
21-08-2007, 00:12
If Chuck Norris was a Spartan the movie would’ve been called ‘1′… and he would’ve lived.
the block
21-08-2007, 00:13
chucks (i mean Narc's) cat
http://i10.tinypic.com/4kjyiki.jpg
Chuck Norris for God!!
Chuck Norris IS God!!
The Simpsons have covered a lot of the science vs religion debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9vmOdt1A78&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wT42m-P99k
Chuck Norris IS God!!
Hallelujah!
BengDogg
21-08-2007, 19:38
Chuck Norris recently had the idea to sell his urine as a canned beverage. We know this beverage as Red Bull.
Hilarious
Glad you liked them Mart.I don't think I'll ever drink a can of Red Bull without thinking of that line.....
Chuck Norris's tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried. Ever.
PikeKing
23-08-2007, 23:10
3/4 push up plus owned me
3/4 push up plus owned me
Excuse me?We were talking about Chuck here.....
Does that mean you have started to train again then?
Religion is IMO all bollocks, born out of ignorance and fear and fueled by mans self-interest.
Religion is IMO all bollocks, born out of ignorance and fear and fueled by mans self-interest.
So,when you see a fire you just have to add petrol,right? :023:
Its the only way I know how..
Its the only way I know how..
Good answer!!
So,when you see a fire you just have to add petrol,right? :023:
On that note i heard that Chuck Norris eats a bowl of rocks in petrol for breakfast every morning.
i ask myself where is the protein :017:
I view religion as simply a control system. And I think blind faith is the most ingenious of these many systems. Stop a person using their own unique ability to question reality and you can pretty much do what you like with them.
I don't perceive anyone trying to indoctrinate me with their beliefs as someone that is doing me a favour. I also don't believe that there is an angry man in the sky who will send me to heaven / or hell. No rewards, nothing to truly fear, just infinite consciousness is what I believe in.
On that note i heard that Chuck Norris eats a bowl of rocks in petrol for breakfast every morning.
i ask myself where is the protein :017:
Chuck Norris doesnt need protein.Its only for us lesser mortals.
Has anyone seen a book written by the hand of 'God' ?
Clicky. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/El-Diego-Autobiography-Greatest-Footballer/dp/0224071904/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/202-6520128-5989430?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188066090&sr=8-1)
i can't be arsed to read this thread but of course god doesn't ****ing exist.
It's just a grown ups version of an imaginary friend
LMFAO!!! That makes me proud to be welsh!
BengDogg
26-08-2007, 13:09
Seeing as theres so many god botherers here does anyone want to take my place at a **** awfull christening this after noon, 3 pm if anyone wants to stand in for me, churches usually burst into flames when i walk into them so id better wear some fire proof clothing.
Enjoy Mart!!!We refused to have either of our kids christened.
BengDogg
26-08-2007, 19:06
Yeah mines not christened and nor was i, i managed to get out of it sort of as jake got bored in the church so i went for a walk around the grave yard with him then i spyed a play park near the church yard so i took jake to that, then i went to the thing after and ate and drank loads, i feel a bit pissed tbh
CheeseOnToast
26-08-2007, 20:05
Haha result Mart.
My kid isn't christened either, neither am I.
Probably because my parents and I are all clever enough to realise that there's no such thing as God. :046:
Well,I was christened(didnt get any choice in the matter at 6 months tho) but my wife was raised as a Muslim and I was raised in a christian household and both of us have rejected organised religon so we felt no need nor desire to christen either of our children....when they get older it will be their choice what religon they practice,if any.Unless of course they feel the need to become satanists or something...
BengDogg
26-08-2007, 20:50
Probably because my parents and I are all clever enough to realise that there's no such thing as God. :046:
Lol my mums pretty much the same she realised there was no god when a friend of hers got killed in a horse riding accident years back.
Tony i dont think theres owt wrong with a bit of devil worship, he is the coolest of all the religious types, what other god listens to heavy metal??
yeah and he's really handy if you are a jobseeker and have idle hands.
BengDogg
27-08-2007, 10:38
lol be carefull it will make you go blind ..... or will it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YFgIGuVWeE
Well i am a catholic (Well not no more but was Christened as one - not by choice) did the holy communion but when it came to the confirmation - Those who are catholics will know the score - refused to do it as i was at the age where i started to question things - luckily my parents had lost faith at that time and were fine with my decesion.
Not getting my daughter baptised or blessed or anything - I believe most people use it for the excuse to have a piss up (not that it's bad thing lol) but truthfully think people do it for the wrong reasons. When i informed one of my brother who christened both of his kids, that i wasn't he gave me a right hard time - told him to get ****ed when he couldn't give me valid reason why i should.
I think you should be allowed to make your own choice when your old enough not be forced on by your parents :023:
yeah and he's really handy if you are a jobseeker and have idle hands.
LOL at that.
Not getting my daughter baptised or blessed or anything
I think you should be allowed to make your own choice when your old enough not be forced on by your parents :023:
We had a Naming Ceremony for our daughter, a civil version of a christening, just family and friends and was carried out in the local Registry Office, which is really posh where we are.
Instead of God Parents you have Life Mentors and we each make promises / commitments as to how we will bring our daughter up.
Instead of God Parents you have Life Mentors and we each make promises / commitments as to how we will bring our daughter up.
Thats a really nice idea.
We had a Naming Ceremony for our daughter, a civil version of a christening, just family and friends and was carried out in the local Registry Office, which is really posh where we are.
Instead of God Parents you have Life Mentors and we each make promises / commitments as to how we will bring our daughter up.
I like that idea thanks, might look into it :023:
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.