Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I am not going there, as I won't be around after I die. If my body stops working, this includes my brain, and my brain is me. So I wouldn't worry about hell.

I worry more about the very, very rabid believers like Didy here. Sorry dude, but... believe me for once: to the majority of those 6 billion people who roam this planet, the bible is just a BOOK. You can't justify your arguments with bible quotes, as it's JUST A BOOK to the people you are trying to convince.

Before you start calling anyone rabid, you might want to remember that you were the one who threw down the gauntlet when you first came on the R&P. You might want to refrain from such ad hominem attacks.

And incidentally, you still haven't actually offered any substantial response to my posts yet.

_________________

I did. I replied to your whole post by saying that meant absolutely nothing to me because the center of the entire post was the bible. And you know how I see the bible.

And this, King Nintenoboy, is exactly what I was talking about when you first started posting. All you said was that you don't believe the Bible. Never mind that I posted half a thread of reasons why I believe your argument was wrong. You expect me to take seriously what you have to say? Then you might better at least ACT like you care what I have to say. Otherwise, you and I have nothing to discuss.

Let me know if you wish to return to reasonable conversation. Otherwise, I'll be cleaning my shoes.

_________________

Try using science and logic to prove your statements. Then I'll listen . I'm more then willing to listen, but only if what I'm listening to doesn't sound like a sermon

In other words, you'll listen to me only if I accept all of your assumption and presuppositions without reservation. Why don't you just ask me to step into a boxing ring blindfolded and my hands tied behind my back.

But why should I let you set the rules and what ought to be acceptible in this discussion? You asked a philosophical question, and I offered a philosophical answer according to my own faith. Yet, according to you, all of a sudden I'm preaching and my word is no longer valid. Well, that's hardly fair. But why should I be surprised? You started your posting on this thread by saying point blank that you intended to ignore any contrary arguments.

I'm going back to cleaning my shoes.

_________________

Getting back to dag's original point, which referred to religion in general, followers of a religion will try to convert other people to their religion.

In other words, let's stop the flaming and have a toastpaint.

But doesn't proselytizing show disrespect for the beliefs of the other person? I'm all for religious freedom and all that. Believe what you want, crazy though we may think it (Scientology, for instance), but don't try to force it on others. We all need to show respect for other people's thoughts and not judge them on their religion.

It's fine if you want to tell someone your point of view and your opinions, but if they decline to listen, just let it go.

And that goes for both ends of the spectrum, ultra-Christians like Ian and ultra-atheists like KN. I think people need to figure out what they believe on their own.

But that's just me.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

I'm the ultra-atheist *strike a pose*

That is a totally awesome nickname.

Good for you. I'm SAVED!!!

Eternity in the Netherlands, eh? Scary!

YES! This was the point i was trying to make with this topic. Finally.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

Science and logic doesn't support your case either, you know ...

All manner of religious belief (and that includes atheism) are NOT supported by any sort of scientific fact. You can claim you don't believe in a God or any sort of supernatural/divine substance because "science taught me so," but it's never happened.

There was a story I read a while back about one such debate where a theist bodyslammed an atheist, who was using the ol' "I have accepted God doesn't exist because science has proved it and I'm a better person than you." And I mean that as in, the atheist couldn't respond back and was pretty well cowed.

It went something like this:

We have one law, the conservation of energy, stating (essentially) that energy can't be created or destroyed. With matter being on "the other side of the coin," it's included in this, I would assume, since matter can be converted to energy and vice versa.

Then there's another law, stating entropy. Actually, this isn't so much of a law anymore, but it still applies to large systems, like, say, the universe; the universe is slowly shifting to a state where no more chemical work can be extracted from it (for example, when all the stars burn out), at least through natural means. That will take billions of years, however. Even so, this implies the universe started somewhere (cue all those theories on the beginning of our universe, most notably the big bang).

So the universe has always been slowly "burning out," as it were. Or you might feel the Big Rip theory is more correct; either way, it had to start somewhere; but most fundamentally, it couldn't have created itself, according to that first law. There is no natural process that can account for creation of matter and energy on the scale of the universe. The only "first law violations" of matter and energy come from theories in Quantum Physics; and even then, we're talking about matter created by the particle.

Just as similarly, there ARE theories about the creation of the universe, but these are all blue-sky hypothesis that will be very hard to test. Even the Big Bang itself is more descriptive of how the universe came to its current state, after its creation.

The argument, therefore, was that because the universe couldn't have created itself from natural means, this casts doubt on an athiest's position (specifically of those schools of belief that claim there is nothing divine or supernatural, i.e. secular humanists and naturalists).

And apparently, the atheist was dumbstruck; having his own tools of debate used against him.

---

What am I getting at here should be self-evident. From the standpoint of science itself, the existence of a god, or gods, or anything supernatural/divine has not yet been proven or disproven. That's it.

Of course, individual sceintists are different, seeing as two-thirds of scientists believe in some sort of religious shindig. They aren't quite the heroes of atheism many have made them out to be.

Please forgive me if I sound hostile to atheists--I've had the opposite experience Dag_yo has. I've been insulted and discriminated against by athiests, told I needed to "grow up" and "accept that God doesn't exist and never existed," that my religion was a "silly myth," or that I was "insane" or "a lesser being" for "giving into base instincts."

I'm a big proponent of religious freedom (and that extends to atheism) because of that. From a purely neutral (or scientific?) standpoint, ALL of our religions, or even if we don't believe in anything, are hypotheses. We can't conclusively prove who's right, or who's partially right, or who's wrong. We may never be able to. So, we believe and have faith. Athiests "have faith" that God doesn't exist, and their beliefs are no more supported by science than anyone else's.

Although I'm a Christian, I'm not an evangelist. I try to remember Jesus' 'golden rule' when it comes to treating others who don't share my religious beliefs--"do unto others as they have done unto you." I'm speaking to my fellow Christians here: You wouldn't want to get pressured endlessly to be converted into, say, an athiest. You wouldn't want to get told by an athiest evangelist that you're an ape or you're not a "bright," or something like that--so you shouldn't pressure atheists (or other religious people) to join your faith, lest they burn in "the hot place."

Anyway, that's all I gotta say.

_________________

I agree with you: mostly. We are called by God to share our faith with people, as He said in the Great Commision. You're right, though, about not beating people over the head with the Bible: "repent! Repent! Repent, or you'll spend eternity in hell!" That's not the right way to do it. You won't help anyone by doing that. That's more likely to repel people from God.

I agree. Remember, actions speak louder than words.

Christian or not, EVERYONE can learn a thing or two form the bible, and should respect it in it's own right, religious or not. Don't drink, don't steal, don't kill people, be nice, be kind, be generous. The bible is an amazing book, wether you believe in god or not.

That isn't to say the bible is the only thing that we can look to for guidance. One thing that so many people forget is that the bible is man-written, and therefore has flaw, because man has flaw. It has to be understood that if you look at anything with perspective, there are things to be learned from it. That includes any religion, and in an ideal world, we would all understand all religions clearly (as so much prejudice comes from lack of understanding) and would agree to disagree. The are so many peace-loving religions in the world, filled with kind and wonderful people, not a single one can be judged by the way some negative people act.

Instead of trying to tell someone else why your religion is the right one, try listening to them about their religion. You might learn a thing or two.

Hannah

That's a very nice sentiment, Hannah. Just one problem: the Words of Jesus. In John 14:6, he says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to God except by me." In John 3:18, he says, "Whoever believes in him (Jesus) is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

Now, while I would like to say that your religious philosophy is right, I cannot, because if I did, I would not be taking my own faith seriously.

So I pose the question to you: should I take these words of Jesus seriously or not?

_________________

heres your free will to be an athiest, you stuck up sob.

http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=3004

_________________

Thanks, Choco. But that might have been a little too strong.

_________________

too strong? nothings too strong, but i have another question, will this atheist rot in hell or stink up the place in purgetory?

_________________

Something I think you forgot, Didymus (in response to your upper post) is that the Bible was not just written by men. Yes, it was physically written by them, but it was inspired by God, and God is flawless.

If he is flawless then why are there people who don't believe in him, and why is there euro-pop...riddle me that!

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

Free will, we would just be robots and wouldn't really love God if we were forced to. People have gone over this before, though I don't remember in which topic.

It's the "Can a (Christian) God Be?" thread.

Maybe it's because God made some people to be that way. I'm sure of it.

_________________

I hope you were being sarcastic or something. If not that's pretty much the wrong attitude entirely.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that, Markie. If you mean that God made some people unable to believe in Him, then that's not the case. That would negate free will.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement, though.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

No he is pretty serious about that.

To answer that question I will quote my late 10th grade religion teacher, "Either Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore believe in what he says, or he is not and there are 2 billion gullible fools in the world."

_________________

That's okay, what I'm really trying to say is that God is trying to test our faith(I wonder why I didn't say that earlier). That, and I should have to take time to rephrase what I said.

_________________

I think you misunderstood me Didy. If you have complete faith in your religion, then by all means, do whatever you feel is right to have faith in your religion. I don't expect you to ignore your own religion. All I'm suggesting is that you take some interest in others, and simply realise the motivation behind it, so you may feel less like everyone is against you and your faith. Listen to other people doesn't mean you take your faith less seriously. I would think it means you take it more seriously, by learning more about the world and your fellow humans on it.

And perhaps, could you use arguments from the world around you to prove the existance of god? I simply ask you this because, you're argument is that the word of the bible is true, and while you're debating against other people, you can't use the words of the bible to prove your point. That's hardly logical or fair. There are plenty of arguments from Christian Scientists about how god exists in the world around us, and I would love to hear them instead of the bible.

Hannah

_________________

I also /r/ that

Hannah:

In the words of Blaise Pascal, "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Not the God of philosophers and scholars."

The reason I rely upon Sacred Scripture to declare my God is because the God I worship is the God of Scripture, the one who revealed himself to certain people at certain times and in certain ways.

Look, the question of this thread is why we Christians feel compelled to share our faith with others. That reason is not found in arguments from nature or philosophy, but in the words of Jesus Christ: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

This is a point that has been made by Christian thinkers throughout the centuries, including Thomas Aquinas and Blaise Pascal. While nature can reveal some things about the nature of God, mainly his existence and power, nature CANNOT reveal all that there is to know about God. In fact, nature can't even reveal WHAT IT IS NECESSARY TO KNOW about God, i.e., his redemption of mankind. Therefore, it is necessary that God reveal this to people through prophecy and miracle. And this, we Christians point out, is to be found in Scripture, and most specifically, in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

So, no, I do not concede that arguments from nature are sufficient. I do not concede that generic gods or generic religion is enough. I contend that only the revelation of Jesus Christ, who himself said that he was the only right way, can possibly reconcile us to the true and living God. That being the case, then the only God I can responsibly proclaim is the one revealed in Scripture.

I am not touching upon the motives of other religions at all. Motives are not what are important to me. As Dr. Erwin Lutzer once put it, all religions are qualified to take bad men and try to make them better, but only Christ is qualified to take dead men and make them live.

I will point out one thing: I have never actually said anything disparaging against other religions on this thread. At most I have only pointed out their insufficiency. But if the words of Jesus are correct, then I am right in doing so.

So to sum up, I proclaim a crucified and risen God because that is the only God I know. I acknowledge no other God, because the God I worship tells me, "You shall have no other gods." And I proclaim the God of Scripture because it is precisely in the Scriptures where this God reveals himself most fully, specifically in the one place, one time in all of human history where God and Man can meet face to face: the Cross. For me, it all hinges on the Cross, for that is where my God is to be found.

_________________