Religious revival speakers are the biggest scam artists ever

[Toda Party]

Im flipping through my HBO channels and come upon this guy who goes around the country, giving words of healing and advice directly from god, and people are shelling out tons of cash for this experience.

What a crock of shit. First of to even believe that paying this guy will somehow make God all of a sudden bless you and forgive ur sins.

WHAT THE FUCK!!! Now he's yelling "substance" and he's taking a swing at people and they're falling down!

I feel bad for all those Brainwashed, idiotic, misguided dumbasses who even go to this shit.

[Strider]

What's the scam artist's name?

[GTPimp]

I hate that shit. I get ANGRY :evil: when that crap comes on the TV. "Healing" Evangelists should be imprisoned for fraud and extortion.

[PanzerM]

Religion is the biggest scam ever.....not just some fat fuck who preaches on TV, fucks his fat ugly wife, plays with his balls and judges my life.

[Toda Party]

I dunno the guy's name, but the interviewer was asking him questions like

If god is so powerful, and he knows ppl are suffering, why does he need you to heal them?

And the gave this roundabout unspecific answer :roll:


Yeah religion is getting outdated. Not to offend anyone who's religious or anything, I still respect religion as something that can teach morals and serves as a spiritual uplift or whatever, but these people make me sick, messing with people's minds and shit.

[NOINTEGReddy]

"its like a faith... once you let go how everything becomes so clear" (Proof of life)

Yeah that shit is dumb. Ive seen them too and it seems like they're only in it for the money, "if you buy this, god will love you". So he won't if I dont give YOU money?

[crack3rjack]

Religion is the biggest scam ever.....not just some fat fuck who preaches on TV, fucks his fat ugly wife, plays with his balls and judges my life.

i remember that song from like 2 years ago - icp lol.

[02GT]

You all have made some pretty general statements in this thread by equating one thing seen on TV with all of Christianity. All of Christianity is not like that, and those people who are using the name of God to promote their own bank account are not really representatives of God. Don't give Christianity a bad rap because some people do evil under its name.

The statments you guys are making would be the same as me saying all Honda drivers are freakin idiots who don't know anything about cars. I know that most aren't like that, but there are the few sticker racers that are.

[PanzerM]

All it takes is for just men to do nothing for evil men to suceed.

[Strider]

All it takes is for just men to do nothing for evil men to suceed.

Edmund Burke was the originator of that quote. I believe it went something like this:

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Always remember to give credit to the quoted. (A pet peeve of mine I suppose.)

[Anonymous]

You all have made some pretty general statements in this thread by equating one thing seen on TV with all of Christianity. All of Christianity is not like that, and those people who are using the name of God to promote their own bank account are not really representatives of God. Don't give Christianity a bad rap because some people do evil under its name.

The statments you guys are making would be the same as me saying all Honda drivers are freakin idiots who don't know anything about cars. I know that most aren't like that, but there are the few sticker racers that are.

Dude calm down.... Take a breather :) Look I am personally atheist, but my parents are jewish and my friends are a mix of almost everything... I am sure that the statements made here are being directed towards those idiots on TV that make a mochary of religion all together... Not for nothing Jimmy stewart was the bickest crock of all but fucking Jessica Hahn was pretty damn hot....

[GTPimp]

FYI: Panzer regularly posts quotes without naming the originator. I know definitely that he is not trying to take credit. I'm not sure, but I believe he just likes to see whos on his plane as far as history goes. Am I right P?

[02GT]

Well in reality, atheism looks about as foolish as false teachers "healing" people on stage (no flame intended).

It takes as much faith to believe in atheism, as it does to go to one of these healing-telemarket demon ceremonies.

[GTPimp]

I believe in God, but I believe in science too. Basically, I'm down with the theory of evolution, but I need to believe in a higher power to get thru some days. Ya know what I'm sayin? Unfortunately, I'm pretty much with Panzer on the uselessness of organized religion thing though.

[Anonymous]

Well in reality, atheism looks about as foolish as false teachers "healing" people on stage (no flame intended).

It takes as much faith to believe in atheism, as it does to go to one of these healing-telemarket demon ceremonies.

Atheism from what i have been led to believe is a belief that there is not one supreme being guiding us.. Thats all it is if I am wrong then I apologize but that is what i believe in.

[Strider]

You all have made some pretty general statements in this thread by equating one thing seen on TV with all of Christianity. All of Christianity is not like that, and those people who are using the name of God to promote their own bank account are not really representatives of God. Don't give Christianity a bad rap because some people do evil under its name.

The statments you guys are making would be the same as me saying all Honda drivers are freakin idiots who don't know anything about cars. I know that most aren't like that, but there are the few sticker racers that are.

I take it from this quote, that you are either a Christan, think you're a Christan, or at least hold a positive outlook on Christianity. Futher more, I take it you don't think it's foolish. That said, on with the reason for this post.......

Well in reality, atheism looks about as foolish as false teachers "healing" people on stage (no flame intended).

It takes as much faith to believe in atheism, as it does to go to one of these healing-telemarket demon ceremonies.

You're saying it's foolish to be an athiest because it takes just as much faith to be athiest as it does to believe false teachers "healing" people on stage? But you don't believe that Christanity is also foolish because it takes faith to believe in what it teaches?

Or are you saying that there is less faith involed when believeing in the teachings of Jesus Christ? Or perhaps you're saying faith is foolish in general?

All religious beliefs take faith. Don't say one is more foolish over the other.

[02GT]

Well in reality, atheism looks about as foolish as false teachers "healing" people on stage (no flame intended).

It takes as much faith to believe in atheism, as it does to go to one of these healing-telemarket demon ceremonies.

Atheism from what i have been led to believe is a belief that there is not one supreme being guiding us.. Thats all it is if I am wrong then I apologize but that is what i believe in.

No you are right. Atheism is the denial of anything supernatural. Atheism is the epitamy of naturalism that was started back with the Atomists in 2nd Century BC. It is the idea that nature and the movement of atoms govern everything that happens and that choice, will, and the future are all dependant on natural things.

What makes this theory so silly is that you have to presuppose that these "moving atoms" somehow mystically formed the order and design we see today. You have to presuppose that "moving atoms" took a one celled organism all the way to a human being that contains organs that are billions of times more complex than a computer.

Let me ask you this...
If you were walking at the beach and found a ticking wrist watch in the sand, would you believe that over millions of years the sand particles had melted and been shifted together in order to make this ticking, functional wrist watch? Or would you believe that something higher than the wrist watch itself designed and made that wrist watch?

A human being is many times more complex than a wrist watch. How could you venture to say that it happened by chance? That, my friend, takes faith.

[02GT]

You're saying it's foolish to be an athiest because it takes just as much faith to be athiest as it does to believe false teachers "healing" people on stage?

So you're also saying that Christanity is also foolish because it takes faith to believe in what it teaches? Or are you saying that there is less faith involed when believeing in the teachings of Jesus Christ? Or perhaps you're saying faith is foolish in general?

No...not at all what I said. If we are going to have this discussion, please do not twist what i say in my statements.

I was referring to these "faith healers" who are obviously out for their own bank accounts. I am referring to the "healers" that take advantage of poor, elderly, and lonely people in order to make millions.

NEVER did I equate Jesus Christ with any of these people.

I was responding to the statement that was made about how people could believe and be fooled by such jargon. I was stating that it is just as foolish and naive to buy in to the atheism belief that I explained above.

[Strider]

You're saying it's foolish to be an athiest because it takes just as much faith to be athiest as it does to believe false teachers "healing" people on stage?

So you're also saying that Christanity is also foolish because it takes faith to believe in what it teaches? Or are you saying that there is less faith involed when believeing in the teachings of Jesus Christ? Or perhaps you're saying faith is foolish in general?

No...not at all what I said. If we are going to have this discussion, please do not twist what i say in my statements.

I was referring to these "faith healers" who are obviously out for their own bank accounts. I am referring to the "healers" that take advantage of poor, elderly, and lonely people in order to make millions.

NEVER did I equate Jesus Christ with any of these people.

I was responding to the statement that was made about how people could believe and be fooled by such jargon. I was stating that it is just as foolish and naive to buy in to the atheism belief that I explained above.

I see exactly what you said. You said atheism is foolish. Atheism takes faith just like any other religious belief. So that leads me to believe that you must think all religious beliefs are foolish.

[Strider]

What makes this theory so silly is that you have to presuppose that these "moving atoms" somehow mystically formed the order and design we see today. You have to presuppose that "moving atoms" took a one celled organism all the way to a human being that contains organs that are billions of times more complex than a computer.

So it isn't silly to believe that a being that wasn't created out of thin air, but has always been, magically made stuff appear out of thin air?

[02GT]

You're saying it's foolish to be an athiest because it takes just as much faith to be athiest as it does to believe false teachers "healing" people on stage?

So you're also saying that Christanity is also foolish because it takes faith to believe in what it teaches? Or are you saying that there is less faith involed when believeing in the teachings of Jesus Christ? Or perhaps you're saying faith is foolish in general?

No...not at all what I said. If we are going to have this discussion, please do not twist what i say in my statements.

I was referring to these "faith healers" who are obviously out for their own bank accounts. I am referring to the "healers" that take advantage of poor, elderly, and lonely people in order to make millions.

NEVER did I equate Jesus Christ with any of these people.

I was responding to the statement that was made about how people could believe and be fooled by such jargon. I was stating that it is just as foolish and naive to buy in to the atheism belief that I explained above.

I see exactly what you said. You said atheism is foolish. Atheism takes faith just like any other religious belief. So that leads me to believe that you must think all religious beliefs are foolish.

I never said ANYWHERE that atheism was just as foolish as any religion. I said Atheism is as foolish as believing in a telemarket "faith healer" who is out for his/her own gain rather than the Kingdom of God. No where does that say anything about "all religions." That isn't even part of Christianity. They may claim to be part of Christianity, but it is a claim not supported by the true Christian community. Just as if you had a race team, someone could put all the stickers and what not on their car to identify themselves with your team (the stickers can be made), but if your team does not recognize them as part of the team, they are not part of the team.

I will have this discussion with you all day long, but I am in my second year of graduate work on this kind of thing. You will not win this argument. I know your own argument better than you do. You are not revealing anything new to me. The most you have accomplished in this whole thing is to 1) twist my words and cause me to have your prove you wrong and 2) given me a platform to share what true Christianity is (which I never mind at all).

Wanna keep going?

[Anonymous]

What makes this theory so silly is that you have to presuppose that these "moving atoms" somehow mystically formed the order and design we see today. You have to presuppose that "moving atoms" took a one celled organism all the way to a human being that contains organs that are billions of times more complex than a computer.

So it isn't silly to believe that a being that wasn't created out of thin air, but has always been, magically made stuff appear out of thin air?

ok im done... i think i started another war...

[Strider]

All I'm trying to do is convince you that either no belief is foolish or that every belief is foolish.

Don't single shit out because you don't agree with them.

[02GT]

What makes this theory so silly is that you have to presuppose that these "moving atoms" somehow mystically formed the order and design we see today. You have to presuppose that "moving atoms" took a one celled organism all the way to a human being that contains organs that are billions of times more complex than a computer.

So it isn't silly to believe that a being that wasn't created out of thin air, but has always been, magically made stuff appear out of thin air?

Ok...if you want to go there we can...

Well there are basically 5 arguments I could use to answer this question and refute your assertion...I will list them and you can pick which one you want. Or pick all 5.

1) The Argument from Motion
2) The Argument from Cause and Effect to a First Cause
3) The Argument from Contingent Beings to a Necessary Being
4) The Argument from Degrees of Perfection to a Perfect Being
5) The Argument from Design in the World to a Designer of the World

Your choice. Any one of these five arguments will answer you question, but I really dont feel like typing them all out unless you require it.

[Strider]

You said it takes as much faith to believe in atheism.....

Faith is the key word here.

It takes faith to believe in any religious belief.

I think I made myself perfectly clear.

[Strider]

LoL.....prove to me that there is a God big boy, and I will become a Christan and stay that way. Prove to me that there isn't a God, and I will become an athiest. Either way, you can't do either. I don't give a shit how much "schooling" you've had.

[02GT]

All I'm trying to do is convince you that either no belief is foolish or that every belief is foolish.



Man you are making this too easy on me.

Do you believe your above statement? Based on what you say, if you do believe it, you are foolish, and if you do not believe it, why did you say it?

There has to be absolutes.

[Strider]

I'm just saying that if you have faith in something, you can't possibly think something else that requires faith is also stupid.

[02GT]

LoL.....prove to me that there is a God big boy, and I will become a Christan and stay that way. Prove to me that there isn't a God, and I will become an athiest. Either way, you can't do either. I don't give a shit how much "schooling" you've had.

I will be the first to tell you that belief in a God requires faith. But in that case, to believe there isn't requires faith as well. I am of the position that requires far more belief to believe that there is not a God versus that there is.

[02GT]

I'm just saying that if you have faith in something, you can't possibly think something else that requires faith is also stupid.

There are things that to have faith in is stupid.

It is stupid to trust anything by faith that does not make sense by reason.

It would be stupid of me to have faith that if I jump off a bridge, I will not fall and die, but will float above the bridge. That goes against reason.

[Strider]

So, what's the requirement to be agnostic? I don't believe in one more than the other. Does that take faith? I call that uncurable ignorance, and I can't help but go by it...and it doesn't require faith.

[02GT]

And you never picked which argument you wanted me to refute you with...
:D

[Strider]

I didn't pick because you can't prove to me, or anyone for that matter, that there is or isn't a God. People may choose to believe one way or another, but deep down no one truely knows. No point in argueing.

[02GT]

So, what's the requirement to be agnostic? I don't believe in one more than the other. Does that take faith? I call that uncurable ignorance, and I can't help but go by it...and it doesn't require faith.

Agnostic is a pretty relative term in today's world. Define your agnosticism.

[02GT]

I didn't pick because you can't prove to me, or anyone for that matter, that there is or isn't a God. People may choose to believe one way or another, but deep down no one truely knows. No point in argueing.

So I made a challenge to you, and you are neglecting to accept?

[Strider]

Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is or isn't a God.

[Strider]

I didn't pick because you can't prove to me, or anyone for that matter, that there is or isn't a God. People may choose to believe one way or another, but deep down no one truely knows. No point in argueing.

So I made a challenge to you, and you are neglecting to accept?

I'm neglecting to accept because I already know what the outcome will be.
It's pointless to argue religion.

[Strider]

Though feel free to post your arguements. I enjoy reading point-of-views concerning creation, God, theology in general.

[02GT]

Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is or isn't a God.

Thanks...some people define agnostic as believing in a God who has no influence on His creation (like Aristotle or Plotinus).

Your belief in itself does take faith. Because there are ways to show there is a god. I can't show you that the God of Christianity is God (that is where faith comes in), but I can show you that a God must, by reason and intellect, exist. Now you will probably just reject the reasons out of stubborness, but I can show you how logic does show there is a God. If you throw out logic and reason, I can do nothing for you, but you will all kinds of contradictions in your world view.

[02GT]

Ok, since we both realize neither one of us will convince each other either way, I will post two of my arguments, and be done with this thread.

Feel free to respond how you wish, but I dont have time to keep going back and forth with you. I have school work and a wife to attend to. We can chat on AIM anytime you wish though.

So give me a sec to post the arguments and you wont hear from me on this thread anymore.

[Strider]

Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is or isn't a God.

Thanks...some people define agnostic as believing in a God who has no influence on His creation (like Aristotle or Plotinus).

Your belief in itself does take faith. Because there are ways to show there is a god. I can't show you that the God of Christianity is God (that is where faith comes in), but I can show you that a God must, by reason and intellect, exist. Now you will probably just reject the reasons out of stubborness, but I can show you how logic does show there is a God. If you throw out logic and reason, I can do nothing for you, but you will all kinds of contradictions in your world view.

I'm interested. I've never found anyone or anything that can persuade me in any way, be it with logic, reason, or theology...I'm as certain that there is a God as there isn't, just as well as I'm convinced that there can't be a God, as well as there has to be one. Post your reasonings though. I'd like to read them.

[02GT]

1) The Argument from Motion (Change).
Things move or change. if something changes, it must possess the potential for change. No poetentiality can actualize itself. Therefore, any change requires something prior to the event that brings about hte movement from potentiality to actuality. An infinetly long series of actualizers is impossible. Therefore, there must be a Prime Mover. There must be something that started the chain reaction into motion. Atheists will say this was the Big Bang, but it is a ridiculous notion to say that an explosion caused the order we see today.

2) The Argument from Cause and Effect to a First Cause.
Every effect must be the result of an efficient cause. Nothing can cause its own existence. No series of efficient causes can be the cause of the series. Hence, there must be a First Cause. There must be a Cause that was not caused. It had to start somewhere. A common response to this is, "Then what caused God?" Well now you have confessed that there is something even greater than God, and that I got you to see the existence of God, which is all this argument is trying to prove. The point is that there must have been an intial Cause that was not caused, and that could not be matter.

3) The Argument from Contingent Beings to a Necessary Being.
A contingent being is something whose nonexistence is possible. A necessary being is a being that is not dependent upon anything else for its existence and whose nonexistence is impossible. A necessary being is eternal and self sufficient. Everything in this universe is contingent, in that relies on something else for its existence. Hence, there must be a necessary being that is the ground of the sum total of contingent beings. If only contingent beings exist, there would be no explanation for a world containing only contingent beings. The only explanation for the existence of a contingent universe is in terms of a necessary being.

4) The Argument from Degrees of Perfection to a Perfect Being.
Things in our world differ in degrees of goodness, truth, beauty, and so on. But it seems before we can judge that a is better than b, that c is more perfect that d, and that e is more beautiful than f, we must first know the standard of truth, goodness, and beauty. Things are more or less good only to the extent that thye resemble something possessing the highest degree of goodness. It should be obvious that we could never know that x falls short of some standard unless we know the standard. All of this entails the existence of something that is the cause of every perfection.

5) The Argument from Design in the World...
I have already stated this basics from this argument above with the wrist watch (which you never answered to). I am tired of typing so I will just let you refer up for that argument.


Ok...I am done here. I hope you can understand these arguments and not just denounce them without using some sort of logic to support your refute. I will warn you ahead of time, in order to denounce these arguments you will have to abandon your logic and your reason.

Techno I will not respond to anything else you write in this thread. I have taken this as far as it needs to go, and I think people can decide for themselves which is the better argument.

I will, however, respond to anyone else in this thread who has questions regarding anything I have posted. I will be out for a while, but I will check the board later on tonight.

Techno, I enjoyed it! I always like to improve my debating skills by practice. Oh and your sig is kind of gross. Might want to conisder revising it. :D Do what you want though.

[Strider]

1) The Argument from Motion (Change).
Things move or change. if something changes, it must possess the potential for change. No poetentiality can actualize itself. Therefore, any change requires something prior to the event that brings about hte movement from potentiality to actuality. An infinetly long series of actualizers is impossible. Therefore, there must be a Prime Mover. There must be something that started the chain reaction into motion. Atheists will say this was the Big Bang, but it is a ridiculous notion to say that an explosion caused the order we see today.

Why is that impossible and the concept that God always has been and always will be isn't?

2) The Argument from Cause and Effect to a First Cause.
Every effect must be the result of an efficient cause. Nothing can cause its own existence. No series of efficient causes can be the cause of the series. Hence, there must be a First Cause. There must be a Cause that was not caused. It had to start somewhere. A common response to this is, "Then what caused God?" Well now you have confessed that there is something even greater than God, and that I got you to see the existence of God, which is all this argument is trying to prove. The point is that there must have been an intial Cause that was not caused, and that could not be matter.

Infinity is brought up again....caused by a cause, by a cause, by a cause...

3) The Argument from Contingent Beings to a Necessary Being.
A contingent being is something whose nonexistence is possible. A necessary being is a being that is not dependent upon anything else for its existence and whose nonexistence is impossible. A necessary being is eternal and self sufficient. Everything in this universe is contingent, in that relies on something else for its existence. Hence, there must be a necessary being that is the ground of the sum total of contingent beings. If only contingent beings exist, there would be no explanation for a world containing only contingent beings. The only explanation for the existence of a contingent universe is in terms of a necessary being.

This is the best arguement yet. But it's just semantics though. How did the neccessary being just "come" to be?

4) The Argument from Degrees of Perfection to a Perfect Being.
Things in our world differ in degrees of goodness, truth, beauty, and so on. But it seems before we can judge that a is better than b, that c is more perfect that d, and that e is more beautiful than f, we must first know the standard of truth, goodness, and beauty. Things are more or less good only to the extent that thye resemble something possessing the highest degree of goodness. It should be obvious that we could never know that x falls short of some standard unless we know the standard. All of this entails the existence of something that is the cause of every perfection.

Good and evil are definied by society.

5) The Argument from Design in the World...
I have already stated this basics from this argument above with the wrist watch (which you never answered to). I am tired of typing so I will just let you refer up for that argument.

Humans are biological, wrist bands are not. I know you aren't talking about evolution here, or maybe your are, but either or, it applies. Natural selection answeres this. What it doesn't answer is what started the natural selection. Mr. Omnipotence? If something just can't be, that it had to be created, then how would God just be?


Ok...I am done here. I hope you can understand these arguments and not just denounce them without using some sort of logic to support your refute. I will warn you ahead of time, in order to denounce these arguments you will have to abandon your logic and your reason.

Techno I will not respond to anything else you write in this thread. I have taken this as far as it needs to go, and I think people can decide for themselves which is the better argument.

I will, however, respond to anyone else in this thread who has questions regarding anything I have posted. I will be out for a while, but I will check the board later on tonight.

Techno, I enjoyed it! I always like to improve my debating skills by practice. Oh and your sig is kind of gross. Might want to conisder revising it. :D Do what you want though.

My sig is great thank you very much. :P

[GTPimp]

I didnt read all your reasons, just the first. My retort: The Big Bang is only the creation of our galaxies and solar systems. What came before that? I believe that before the big bang there was a mamoth black hole-esque phenomenon that drew in many galaxies. As the galzxies were sucked into the black hole a tremendous amount of energy built up which lead to a massive explosion-"the big bang". Who knows how many times this has occurred over infinite years? We can't because there is no evidence yet I believe my perpetuation in this existance stems from science. I choose to believe in God as our ancients did to explain things that we cannot. So you can never prove that there is or is no God because your argument ends dating back to the big bang. Get me to the origin of existance and I will follow you, but you cannot because you only see up to the big bang.

Bottom Line: What caused the Big Bang (Roseanne jumping is not an acceptable answer)?

[Strider]

Oh well, here are some thoughts on this whole subject about God and creation:

I've always found that I really can't subscribe to any particular idea(s) about existence, in the Platonic or empirical sense... I guess, at heart, I'm agnostic, and acknowledge that every idea I'll ever have about this reality is very likely wrong, but I like to explore those possibilities, anyway, on the off chance that I might get it right one day. I view my system of beliefs as sort of a tree, with the doubt of all things (hence, the willingness to consider all things) being it's root, from which spring forth 2 general branches, to each of which I give plausibility, one generalizing and ordered, deterministic universe, the other generalizing a truly chaotic, nondeterministic system of pure entropy. I can't really see how there could be a state of which is between the two, but I'll get into that some other time.
The idea of chaos is probably the shorter and more easily explained of the two. In either system, time can't really be considered to be real, because, on a cosmic scale, it's all right now, compressed into one point. In lieu of infinity, past and future seem to blur into present, a big ball of now. In a chaotic system, throughout the particular now, there can be no absolutes; the presence of any universal rules prevents true chaos from reigning. Semantically speaking, this creates a problem: the statement "There can be no absolutes" is, in itself, an absolute statement, and is a paradox. Two solutions to this problem are apparent...considering that the system is chaotic, who the hell cares about our logical train of thought? On the other hand, we could change that statement to say "There is only one absolute, and it is that there is only one absolute, and it is that there is only... etc." But, as I said, this is just semantics, and logic would seem to have little application to a chaotic system. Any rules or apparent absolutes on would find in a chaotic system would be completely arbitrary, and only very finitely present. I would be much akin to a dealer calling the rules as he goes in a game of poker, except the dealer might be the god of the moment. One would argue that our universe cannot be chaotic because of the overwhelming presence of physical laws, which all things seem to follow, and that on a cosmological scale, all things tend to follow patterns caused by these laws... I would argue that our laws are very finite, and that there are many occurrences between the fields of quantum mechanics and classical physics that don't fit into our preconceived notions. It is also widely accepted that every physical law we know would have been broken during the singularity of the supposed "big bang", and that a completely different set of laws may have existed beforehand. This makes our present laws seem very arbitrary. The patterns that we see with our finite minds may be nothing more universal that the tortoise I once saw formed by a few fluffy clouds. Given infinity in chaos, wouldn't it stand to reason that the reality we experience would have to occur at some point, and that an infinite number of variations of it would have to occur, also? We see what appears to be order, but the order we see could be, at heart, a chaotic set of arbitrary rules. All of this raises another question of personal determinism involving free will. Could chaos be the heart of our own passions? Are we capable of doing what we want because of the lack of absolute laws that govern individual behavior? On the other hand, maybe the presence of arbitrary law dictates our actions in much the same way an absolute would in a deterministic system... but, that's another argument to itself.
The branch of determinism is arguable more complex... at least, it can be described more fully, because it follows more closely to the sense of logic we like to follow. In this branch there is at least one (arguably, only one) absolute, universal law which applies to all of existence, including itself ("god has to follow its own rules, because they define it's personality"). All things we know spring forth from these primal rules, and it becomes more evident as we look at wider cosmologic scales that the same general, observable rules apply to entities of all sizes (disregarding quantum mechanics, because it is not widely understood, and is vastly theoretical). Give that the primal absolutes have infinite and infinitesimal time and space upon which to affect, the patterns we observe seem to permeate all existence, from the spiral shape of distant galaxies to the spiral dance of electrons around the nuclei of particular elements, upward and downward, on into seemingly infinite proportions and complexities. Indeed, we often find that these patterns are so intricate and logical that it seems an intelligent designer brought them into being.
It is from the concept of having an intelligent designer that branches another generalization of possibilities, dealing with a deity of sorts, and it is to this which I, in practice, I tend to adhere. When I think of "god", I think of an all-pervading energy, self-contained, existing through infinity and unbound by our concepts of matter and time... an entity that is the sum of existence, that, in the truest sense of the word, "is" (as the Judaic Yahweh said, "I am that I am."). It is the primal moving force that created the chain of events we perceive everyday, and at the same time is the end result of them. During our own existences, we get to know ourselves through so many ways... primarily by experiencing life. How many times, thought, have you drifted away into your own little world, without consciously leaving this one? Don't you often find yourself building a small fantasy world, in which you dream of the different ways you could have traveled the paths taken throughout your day? Or, maybe your thoughts sometimes wander to hypothetical situations, and you fantasize what you might do given a particular context. Isn't daydreaming, in a sense, another way by which we get to know ourselves? By putting ourselves in different shoes, and imagining what we might do, aren't we really creating a limited, temporary alternate reality in an attempt to view an unknown part of our being? This is how I perceive god, if it exists: a lone entity, existing in and of itself, but not knowing itself for lack of points of reference.
(Here goes the speculation) It could be that this entity, having nothing to do but explore itself, felt it necessary to start dreaming of contexts, into which it inserted itself. It may be that god is not omniscient; it does not thoroughly know itself. So, in order to further define itself, it seems logical that it might construct its own little fantasy world, with as much complexity as it wanted and then insert itself into that world. But, its own intelligence would be its problem; no matter how it tried to perceive the environment it created, it still knew who and what it was. A solution to the problem might be to forget its own existence. In the beginning of what might be called life, this god began to divide itself into small, limited versions of itself, "souls" perhaps, and cut those beings away from its own superceding consciousness, so that they were only aware of their selves, but not the sum of their selves. Each should know only of the super-consciousness, but was no longer consciously a part of it. This god directed its souls to explore and experience the dream that it had made up, to get to know itself; it would later collect the individuals up again, and further complete itself through the pool of self-knowledge. Each soul, having its own illusion of free will, found that the best way to experience the existence it was provided with was to further limit itself, and inhabited the reactions and processes that we call life. With regard to our timeline, their experiences began with the most simple of god's creations, and their beings grew more complex as life forms evolved and became more complex hosts. Each soul existed without regard to time, as did god. It could inject itself into this reality, while "watching the show" from the outside... thus, the soul knows the outcome of the injection before it occurs, and it would seem as if all things in life occur following its plan. Although the outcomes were known, the experience still was not, and the souls only knew the outcomes of events in the same way that god knew the outcome of dividing itself to begin with. Thus, the souls repeatedly thrust themselves into life, experiencing it in all its myriad forms, the good, along with the bad, pleasure along with suffering. The soul knows what it's like to starve in a desert. It knows what it's like to be robbed at gunpoint, to rob someone at gunpoint, to be a child who doesn't understand why that man is pointing a gun at mommy and yelling at her, and to be a mother who wonders what Jo does at night to keep her kid fed. It has been said that god is love's ultimate form; this is true, in the sense that each small soul roaming the universe is insignificant among the numbers, yet infinitely vital to the end result, whether that soul happens to be a nun, a murderer, a saint, or a slug. Given all these contexts, we could all seem to be following a preset plan, playing the game by the rules set forth by god, controlled by our "souls", which are, in turn, controlled by god. All end results are known, but the experience is lacking in the same way a sky diver knows the result of jumping will be to hit the ground, but strives to feel it. We, as creations of souls, have free will; they exist temporarily, as limited versions of ourselves, not conscious of the greater being, roaming about in our fantasy world, being driven to act by our wills, but never knowing why, or even being aware that they are being driven. Within an infinite entity, there are infinite possibilities, uncountable fantasies for god to delve into, and each exist in the now that is god, as does the infinite timeline we perceive. (End speculation)

that was by some dude named jacob

[GTPimp]

I'm exhausted after reading that whole thing, but it was excellent. If I had a secretary to type for me I might add my own rendering, but I need to do some work. I love these discussions.

[02GT]

I didnt read all your reasons, just the first. My retort: The Big Bang is only the creation of our galaxies and solar systems. What came before that? I believe that before the big bang there was a mamoth black hole-esque phenomenon that drew in many galaxies. As the galzxies were sucked into the black hole a tremendous amount of energy built up which lead to a massive explosion-"the big bang". Who knows how many times this has occurred over infinite years? We can't because there is no evidence yet I believe my perpetuation in this existance stems from science. I choose to believe in God as our ancients did to explain things that we cannot. So you can never prove that there is or is no God because your argument ends dating back to the big bang. Get me to the origin of existance and I will follow you, but you cannot because you only see up to the big bang.

Bottom Line: What caused the Big Bang (Roseanne jumping is not an acceptable answer)?


Funny last line.

Go back and read the others. They will go back to existence. And the Big Bang theory has been used to describe the origin of the universe. Either way, you are saying that the result of a corruptive action caused an incredibly ordered effect.

Causes could not exist for all of eternity. There HAS to be something that was the first cause. You can't just say causes are infinite. At some point there must be a cause that had no cause. To say otherwise is rational suicide.

[GTPimp]

Yes, but if you believe in inertia, then a body at rest stays at rest, a body in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by another force. With this theory, then the universe was never at rest and therefore there could never be an ultimate beginning. Basically, papa was a rolling stone...and his papa, and his papa, so on and so on.

[GTPimp]

I'll go back when I can and read the rest...unless you need a financial advisor and would like to be my next client...in which case I don't need to make any phone calls tonight...what do you say?

[02GT]

Yes, but if you believe in inertia, then a body at rest stays at rest, a body in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by another force. With this theory, then the universe was never at rest and therefore there could never be an ultimate beginning. Basically, papa was a rolling stone...and his papa, and his papa, so on and so on.

You and I are both saying essentially the same thing. The difference is that I am saying there had to be a start to that process. Something had to set that first "papa" in motion if you will. You can't have infinite causes. There has to be a cause that was not caused.

[Toda Party]

i should've paid attention in philosophy.

I want someone to explain something to me, not really w/ the existence of God, but religion itself.


My family is Catholic, and my mom is very religious. She wants me to go to church all the time, and I never do when I'm up at school because, frankly, the mass and gospel bores me and doesn't really motivate nor inspire me.

I'm sure we all know our basic science, the Big Bang theory, Theory of evolution, etc. In my opinion, they make perfect sense. Yet catholicism at least explains the creation of man by a supreme being, and creation of a woman through the man's rib.

Now, when I was young, I took all these literally. Then one day, I was told that they were just stories in order to explain life.

Which is it? Explain to me how 1 man and 1 woman goes on to create billions of human beings. Explain to me how those first batches of children did not end up with down's syndrome.

And then my main problem with all of this is that the Church "Scares" u into believing.

We're intelligent human beings, and we obviously ponder our own existence. NO ONE knows how we got here, or how REALLY the universe works. So I think its allright for us to really wonder how we ended up here, but according to Catholicism, those who don't believe in God are the ones who won't be saved, or who will go to hell.

Off-topic, but what happened in the year 2000? Nothing....but that's when the world was supposed to end, no?

[02GT]

Which is it? Explain to me how 1 man and 1 woman goes on to create billions of human beings. Explain to me how those first batches of children did not end up with down's syndrome.

Well for times sake i will address this part now and the rest later. you asked a lot of good questions and i want to answer them.

Rule 1: Don't equate the Catholic faith with Protestant Christianity (no offense to your mom). They are two TOTALLY different lines of thought.

Anyway...to get to what you said above, it is much easier to explain how one man and woman created billions than to explain how one celled organisms became billions of people. They were able to do it because they had a creator that breathed life into them.

I promise i will get to this more this evening, but for now i need to jet and go buy some parts. :D I might actually just im you and we can chat there to avoid the immature comments that inevitable are made about discussions like this.

[Strider]

Religion?

It's certain moral principles which reflect greater universal ethics and dogmas that reflect the opinion of the religious group.

All in all, man's way of explaining the after life and making a little money on the side.

[Logan]

i cannot believe i missed this.

theology is like my forte.

someone give me something to discuss or something thats still not clear or anything, i wanna be a part but i dont wanna read all the stuff and come in on the tail end :(

[PanzerM]

All it takes is for just men to do nothing for evil men to suceed.

Edmund Burke was the originator of that quote. I believe it went something like this:

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Always remember to give credit to the quoted. (A pet peeve of mine I suppose.)

While sharing a same meaning those are not the same qoutes. I was saying if these men are frauds then the church should act against them. Or else these men will inevitablity hurt the believers in the faith.

[Strider]

All it takes is for just men to do nothing for evil men to suceed.

Edmund Burke was the originator of that quote. I believe it went something like this:

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Always remember to give credit to the quoted. (A pet peeve of mine I suppose.)

While sharing a same meaning those are not the same qoutes. I was saying if these men are frauds then the church should act against them. Or else these men will inevitablity hurt the believers in the faith.

Oh I know....that's just were the misquoted quote that you posted was derived from.

[PanzerM]

It's not a misqoute and it's not from Burke. You just never heard it, and therefore in light of this lack of knowledge on your part, you have assumed I have made a mistake on my part.

[Strider]

It's not a misqoute and it's not from Burke. You just never heard it, and therefore in light of this lack of knowledge on your part, you have assumed I have made a mistake on my part.

I've heard the quote before, but the original form of that quote was from Burke. It's been basterdized to hell and back and is now in the form of the quote you said. I'm just letting you know. Seems to me you're the one lacking the knowledge.

[PanzerM]

hmmmmm, I maybe I was taken to the bastard form, but it might be better to say from the idea of yours, er I mean Burke's words, sprang forth the thought which blossomed into my qoute.

[Strider]

hmmmmm, I maybe I was taken to the bastard form, but it might be better to say from the idea of yours, er I mean Burke's words, sprang forth the thought which blossomed into my qoute.

Oh, so now you're saying that you came up with your form of that quote?
Or are you saying that you just thought of that all on your lonesome?

Not to burst your bubble, but if that's the case, then I believe you're wrong. I've seen that quote everywhere. I researched where it originated from, and all sources tell me from Burke. Either way, you should show the name of the person you stole the quote from. If in fact that's what you did.

If you came up with it all of your own free will and volition, then I'm sorry for doubting you.

[PanzerM]

no that I only have remembered it from what ever source I heard it from. Might have been starwars.......lol I don't remember, I only remember the saying that's all.

[Strider]

no that I only have remembered it from what ever source I heard it from. Might have been starwars.......lol I don't remember, I only remember the saying that's all.

Word, that's cool. I don't even know why I'm argueing this. I mean who the fuck really cares? :lol:

Sorry...

Back to the theological discussions if thats at all possible...

[02GT]

i cannot believe i missed this.

theology is like my forte.

someone give me something to discuss or something thats still not clear or anything, i wanna be a part but i dont wanna read all the stuff and come in on the tail end :(

You really should read the whole thing. Pretty interesting. :)

[90_Civic_CX_Hatch]

hehe now that question about Down Syndrome, I can answer (with a buncha b.s., but I still like it.)
this is just something I found on a website a while back, but I'm too lazy to type it all up so I'll give you the paraphrased version.

Did you know that before 1949 (i think) there was no record of Downs? Have you ever seen to down's converse? Its creepy! like a whole new language! Anyways, my idea I am trying to say is Down's are projects done by aliens!


If you want to here the full version (VERY much Funnier!!) then just email me at freakof_nature@hotmail.com. Also, if you have any questions about christianity just email me, I love getting into these arguments but with less people (for clarity :D )

i'd love to argue with somebody!

[Angrykid2002us]

different religions have different "gods" - athiesm serves the god of nothing, or, no supreme being - at one end of the spectrum, there is "nothing" and at the other end, there is "god" - to believe in one, you must believe in the other - they are mutually inclusive...

"god" to some people is the sum of all perfections - different people have different opinions of what is and what isn't a perfection - e.g.: essence and existence.

"nothing" has no perfection - it is the lowest possible "thing", containing no-thing, not even a void... no color, no limit, no shape - it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend or understand, much like "god" - the sum of all perfections... see the relationship?

[redVTEC92]

I hate to say this, but if there is a god, he hates us all, or he is satan. Im an atheist not by choice but because I see no proof of god. Religion is a drug for stupid people and poor people

[redVTEC92]

speaking of god and religion AHHHH!!!! ITS MY 666TH POST!!! THE DEVIL IS UPON US!!!!

[Strider]

I hate to say this, but if there is a god, he hates us all, or he is satan

Explain to me why you think this.

[El Jefe]

i believe that there is an afterlife where we see everyone again. I also believe in God.

[ImportZ32]

I hate to say this, but if there is a god, he hates us all, or he is satan. Im an atheist not by choice but because I see no proof of god. Religion is a drug for stupid people and poor people

somone needs a hug... :roll:

[redVTEC92]

Because of all the suffering and injustice that happens in thew world, thats why I say that if therer is a god, he hates us all, and yes, mabey I do need a hug, will you give me one?

[Anonymous]

Damn, I just watched a documentary on Evander Holyfield (the boxer in case you don't know) and he went to some 'miracle healer.' Benny somthing was his name. He supposedly fixed evander's heart problem that he'd had for his whole life. And the funny thing was that Evander, being the religious guy that he is, fell for it and thanked God for him. :roll:

[EK_Hatchy]

Because of all the suffering and injustice that happens in thew world, thats why I say that if therer is a god, he hates us all, and yes, mabey I do need a hug, will you give me one?

well technically if you follow the whole adam and eve story, God gave us the power of free-will and choice. instead of creating a human race that just naturally believed and loved God from the start, and that would never stop believing or loving him because that's how we were created, he created us to be able to choose between believing in him and following his ways, or to completely reject him and follow our own ways. Obviously everyone knows the outcome in the garden of eden, man chose to follow their own ways over God's ways, thus bringing imperfection and "sin" into the world. Basically all i'm trying to say is that evil, death, suffering, and destruction are a result of man's own decisions and choices. man chose to bring evil into the world, it is not God who brought evil upon us. God is perfect and holy and evil or imperfectness is against his very nature and contradicts his very existence. it would be impossible for God, perfect and blameless, to cause bad stuff to happen. :)

[TurboMora]

well, God is mathematically possible, I think it was Einstein that said that.
And THERE IS SOMETHING SUPERIOR TO US. How do I know?
well, take the human eye. It a very complex system of tissues, and susbstances that create an electrical impulse to the brain so we can "see".
That complex system could only exist if it was desgined like that from the beginning. No theory of evolution here. Everything was created and was given the power to improve along with conditions and time, but the basic concept is the same. One basic design of the eye, but millions of derivations.
And yes, people that preach in order to make money should be sent to jail.