User Tag List

View Poll Results: What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

Voters
131. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm an atheist

    36 27.48%
  • I'm agnostic

    25 19.08%
  • Buddhism

    6 4.58%
  • Hinduism

    1 0.76%
  • Islam

    2 1.53%
  • Christianity

    39 29.77%
  • Other

    22 16.79%
First 35434445464755 Last

Results 441 to 450 of 590

  1. #441
    Privileged Sh!tlord ZNP-TBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx
    Socionics
    ILE Ti
    Posts
    3,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geedoenfj View Post
    Your complicated body system was created by God is foolish idea= your PC was created by a manufacturer is a foolish idea..
    Why do you think the manufacturer would show himself to you any way? As for God, he would show himself to you after death anyway so he don't need you to believe him, and don't need you to make judges about believers, take your atheism with you and take off!!
    I think someone said it already, a PC is an inorganic system that doesn't reproduce itself with variation and thus is not subject to any kind of biological evolution, lol. If complexity is the excuse for God's existence and you therefore accept Him as the designer then you have to concede that God is more complex than us. If that is true , and complexity requires a designer, then what or who designed God?

  2. #442
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieNinjaPirate View Post
    I think someone said it already, a PC is an inorganic system that doesn't reproduce itself with variation and thus is not subject to any kind of biological evolution, lol. If complexity is the excuse for God's existence and you therefore accept Him as the designer then you have to concede that God is more complex than us. If that is true , and complexity requires a designer, then what or who designed God?
    Well, the thinking which informs that perspective, which I think is broadly speaking similar to that of Thomas Aquinas, is that God is the prime mover, the unmoved mover, the cause of every other effect.

    Anyway, I think the whole rejection of evolution, natural selection, whatever is just a rejection of any other explanation than that in scriptures, the hindu upanishads (spelling) or anything like it would be in the same category. The issue is biblical or scriptural literalism or even solo scripture which isnt a common perspective to all Christians or even all believers, I think its heretical and idolatrous, not to kick of another altogether different and tangental discussion. I just get tired of the discussion of naturalism vs. supernaturalism in belief systems which treats either like they are a unified single body of theory agreed upon.

    Complexity is acknowledged by many thinking atheists without their accepting deities or supernatural first causes or first principles or anything of that order. There's some pretty crazy, to my mind, explanations of complexity which are validated as scientific (or at least pseudo-scientific) which are on a par with any origins story akin to Genesis, the whole cosmos made conscious of itself or embodied or incarnate consciousness ideas for instance, multiverse, string theory etc. etc.

  3. #443
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,054

    Default

    Said it before, I'll say it again:

    Jedi.

  4. #444
    Senior Member geedoenfj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    You've made several errors. First, is that mundane things do not need to be subjected to the burden of proof, as it makes casual interaction impossible (the video points out this exactly near the end). Your cup example doesn't illustrate the burden of proof case either. First, we have a physical basis and understanding of what likely resulted in its placement. To claim that someone must have put it there is extremely reasonable, no one is going to deny that. Again, the video points out this near the end. Second, as you worded it, you are the one that made the claim; you stated that it's just there by itself. If I were to speak next, I would be asking for more information, not making the claim. By saying "surely someone must have put it there", is actually using precedent evidence of how objects are moved by people as a basis for countering you. I am challenging your statement of saying "it's just there", which offers nothing substantating to why it is there, to now giving a valid reason for basis of why. It would then be your turn to either combat my statement, or readjust your claim.
    I obviously gave an example of a small object like a cup as a creation to make my point more clear to you, and demonstrate how it differs from proving a concept of the creator "God" which you demanded to be proven..
    Since the cup is creature and this weird example of Pluto thing is also a creature and both are incomparable to how you might define a God, I would go with the cup example because it's touchable unlike the Pluto thing which you compared it wrongly to the claiming of God existence; and as you proceeded I think you would be able to figure out what I mean..
    See I don't say something like: "you can't prove me wrong" that's just lame!
    First of all you DON'T NEED to prove me wrong, you can either accept my opinion or deny it, and secondly you required an evidence; so I gave you an evidence, which I would give it once again in order to make things clearer:
    Every thing around you can't exist merely by itself and work in this incredible system that our brain is still trying to figure out.
    But you chose to decide that's this idea is irrational and ended up suggesting some idea of what you find to be rational that things just happen and that there doesn't need to be a reason, and that you need to actually examine this thing called God closely because this method proved valid to all creatures so it should necessarily apply to the actual creator of these creatures (I would once again come up to that point also as you proceed) that's when you chose to deny the whole evidence..

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I don't think that all things are linked in reason (unless I am misunderstanding your wording). What I do think is that we have the ability to understand why things happen and are the way they are by using logic, and science. Some things will be easier than others, and others will not have an answer in our lifetime.
    That would be valid in terms of what we have been through in our lives, like unstable childhood or a certain disease or bullying or strange coincidences, we don't need to go too far digging into the meaning behind all of that and questioning why it's me, instead we gotta be strong enough to stand up for ourselves and fight back and what doesn't break you should make you stronger..
    But when talking about materials, and energy which both are basically the main components of the universe, I have to disagree with you, and allow me to get back to my little cup here as a little example of a material that it is consist of, and the energy that helped in manufacturing and putting that cup on the table, alright? if the physical, chemical, mathematical etc. rules does apply to this cup, it should apply to the whole universe because this small object is a material and a part of the universe, so the same claim that applies to the existence of this cup should apply to any other creature.. And thinking broadly: even this cup was not created by a human being out of nowhere, a human being is just using materials and energy sources that already existed putting them all together and subsequently manufacturing the "cup"..

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    By you saying "we call that reason a god", is a unneeded placeholder. In the absence of any reason or evidence, it does no benefit to default to some sort of idea or explination. Worse, it can be damaging if it misleads investigation if it came from no support. Your statement boils down to the idea of "science can't explain it, so until then it must be god". To that sort of statement I say why? You are making the claim for one, and that line of reasoning is a non sequitur. Absence of reason or logic does not lead to there needing or being a god present.
    Well believing the theory of a creator of the universe still sound more logical than okay until we prove that universe didn't create itself we better believe in Darwin theories.. Even Darwin theories did not answer the question of how all of that came out of nowhere!! The scientists could do whatever they can to find out more about the creation, but they would eventually admit that everything was actually originated in some point..
    That's interesting because I see having no God at all is extremely damaging because what is good for humanity would merely rest on a point of view created by some other human beings who are sleeping and eating and having kids and have emotional breakdowns just like you do, and eventually making the crimes to be punishable only if a human law and justice could have found it's a way to apply that on the criminal or else he's not accountable for his actions.. that's an extremely dangerous path to go..

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    You go further to say that I want "proof like seeing". Yes. I want proof that is testable and quantifiable by logic and scientific process just like any other theory we have currently. Whether it be in physics, chemistry, psychology, whatever it may be. I need something to be workable within these confines, because up to this point everything has worked within these (and those that haven't intitally eventually came to function under them). You are making a special pleading case of "the evidence can't be studied, it's a different kind of evidence". Ok, even if we assume that's the case we still have yet to get evidence that can be worked with. Until that point I have no reason to believe.
    I think I replied to that earlier but okay I can reply again
    If these rules of testing and sensing were put by supernatural being, it applies on every little or massive object in this universe, but doesn't necessarily apply to the one who created it all.
    If you create a PC would it be necessarily that you have a turn on/off button, a c panel and Microsoft Office, a keyboard a screen etc.? if you think of how endless this universe is and how small we are, how limited is our time of existence, you'll realize that your brain is only another created object that you are using to try to figure things out, you don't even know how it was found out of nowhere except for what Darwin tells you about the DNA and all of that which eventually was generated at some point.. So the creator of our brain does not necessarily subject to the brain he created by conventional measurements, so if you refuse to think otherwise then it's okay..
    Until you get to what your human brain thinks to be a proof of it's creator, you don't need to believe in it, but once it's (proven) to you, it's not anymore a belief because you can't believe a tastable fact, so either way; you won't accept the idea of belief whatsoever.
    You can only think that tomorrow would bring a brighter future to you even if there seems to be no actual mathematics or any other human-brain measures behind it, that's why it's called a belief..

    [QUOTE=Hard;2557275.
    Your final statement is trying to shift the burden or proof onto atheism by asking us to prove a negative; that's now how logic works. You made the claim, not I. As the saying goes "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence".

    Sorry of this seems cold/harsh/mean/demeaning; not my intent at all.[/QUOTE]

    You call it a shift of burden, I call it a comparison of how an atheist perceive the whole idea of existence to how a religious person perceive it..
    I've noticed you totally refuse or maybe offended by the idea that an atheist is also a believer but putting a proper definition of what the "belief" is for my little brain (or any other unbiased brain) to make things more understandable, I think the belief applies to atheists even if they keep denying it.. I apologize if this sounds offensive to you..
    Nah not harsh or mean or anything like that at all, I hope you have a nice day [emoji255]
    Work for a cause not for Applause
    Live to express not to Impress


    “sometimes... confused people are funnier, nicer, and more open-minded than non-confused people.” labyrinthine


    6w7 > 1w2 > 4w3


  5. #445
    Senior Member geedoenfj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieNinjaPirate View Post
    I think someone said it already, a PC is an inorganic system that doesn't reproduce itself with variation and thus is not subject to any kind of biological evolution, lol. If complexity is the excuse for God's existence and you therefore accept Him as the designer then you have to concede that God is more complex than us. If that is true , and complexity requires a designer, then what or who designed God?
    I replied to the organic thing already you can read it up there [emoji115]🏻
    As for who designed God, if there need to be a starting point for the universe which you people find it to be illogical, then it would be God, that's why it was not created by any other designer..
    Still irrational? It's okay because I find that nature created itself irrational too..
    Work for a cause not for Applause
    Live to express not to Impress


    “sometimes... confused people are funnier, nicer, and more open-minded than non-confused people.” labyrinthine


    6w7 > 1w2 > 4w3


  6. #446
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp
    Socionics
    INFj Ne
    Posts
    783

    Default

    I've been baptized into the Swedish Church, which is Protestantic Christian. My belief in God is strong, and I am currently in the process of converting to Catholicism. I believe it to be the most devout and genuine kind of Christianity, as it was the first church. Not manmade and compromising in the sense that I percieve other denominations to be, but also not hateful...
    4w5-9w1-5w4

  7. #447
    What Is Life? RobinSkye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    541 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj Ne
    Posts
    579

    Default

    Agnostic. Like any good Ne type, I believe in the possible existence of anything.
    Ti = Ne > Ni > Si > Te = Fi > Se > Fe
    5w4 - 4w3 - 1w9
    Chaotic-True Neutral.

    My Socionics test result: http://www.sociotype.com/tests/resul....V8bh7vuL.dpuf
    Likes DoctorCroupy#9 liked this post

  8. #448
    Junior Member kaepsae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    INFp Fe
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    So when do you get offensive?

    I'm indifferent to your thinking, feeling or fate.
    Well, some people got offended by red Starbucks mugs, so you never know. But yeah, it turned out more vanilla than I first planned to.

    Right back at you, sir *tips fedora*

  9. #449
    Privileged Sh!tlord ZNP-TBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx
    Socionics
    ILE Ti
    Posts
    3,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geedoenfj View Post
    As for who designed God, if there need to be a starting point for the universe which you people find it to be illogical, then it would be God, that's why it was not created by any other designer..
    Still irrational? It's okay because I find that nature created itself irrational too..
    It's just that your statements are contradictory. You do not accept the universe may have always existed (even as a singularity according to the BBT) but fully accept that your God does. You argue since the universe exists it has a starting point ( which you call God) yet also claim God exists but doesn't need a starting point. Clearly you do NOT think all things which exist require a starting point or else you would be searching for God's designer. My real question is how do you know something like God doesn't require a designer and something like the universe does especially if God is more complex than the universe?

  10. #450
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaepsae View Post
    Well, some people got offended by red Starbucks mugs, so you never know. But yeah, it turned out more vanilla than I first planned to.

    Right back at you, sir *tips fedora*
    What if I told you that,
    no one was ever offended by starbucks,
    the whole thing was a scam to excite liberals.

    Lovers of good coffee,
    maybe offended by starbucks,
    for different reasons.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-04-2016, 05:39 AM
  2. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 04-05-2016, 08:17 AM
  3. What magazines do you subscribe to and why?
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 01:01 PM
  4. [ENTP] ENTPs, how often do you cry, [if ever] and why?
    By Spry in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 11:06 AM
  5. What direction do you see the USA going in, and where would you like it to go?
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 01:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO