Valid Question: Is the Bible erotic literature?

[Mangled*]

I doubt I'll get my point across...

That works both ways, you know? You made a bad point, it was responded to by several good counter-points. But from your reaction it seems we'll not get our point across either.

What was your point by the way? Oh yes...

It was before we were so obsessed with out own pitiful logic and theories.

Well you've made the same mistake there as many ignorant minds before you. You've dismissed logic.

Since you find logic so pitiful: how about the next time you cross a road, don't look first! Because that would be logical. And if you do get hit by a car, God intended it. Why? Oh, to show how fragile humans are I suppose is what you would rationalise in your own head. Not because you were being a bumbling moron and not looking before you cross the road.

Also, don't forget that God is just a theory too, but unlike scientific theories which are based on meticulous testing and observation and deduction, there's no evidence OR logic to back it up.

[demoniac93]

I didn't dismiss logic, human logic that is.
I simply don't worship it...
What are we but a peck in the huge universe?
There's things we CANNOT explain, and those are the things we dismiss, like how an Atheist won't accept the existence of God because God cannot be explained...
But true to my beliefs I won't be forcing my religion down peoples' throats. I'm done here.

[Mangled*]

I didn't dismiss logic, human logic that is.
I simply don't worship it...
What are we but a peck in the huge universe?
There's things we CANNOT explain, and those are the things we dismiss, like how an Atheist won't accept the existence of God because God cannot be explained...
But true to my beliefs I won't be forcing my religion down peoples' throats. I'm done here.

An atheist also won't accept the existance of fairies and leprachauns and vampires for the very same reason.

It's not because there's no explanation, it's because there's no proof. The explanation for these things is that they're not real, that they're the product of human imagination. That's their explanation and the same explanation fits God perfectly.

The things that we cannot explain are simply things that science is yet to explain. The things that we can explain, can be explained thanks to science. 1000 years ago people would have explained an electric drill as being witchcraft. That's not an explanation, it's a theory, and one that isn't based on anything. Science explains perfectly the mechanisms of electromagnetism and how powerful rotational movement can be achieved by it. It can also back up that explanation with evidence.

No, you're not forcing your religion down people's throats, but you're not doing a good job of justifying your beliefs. And I'm not forcing my beliefs down anyone's throats more than every day life does to those who are aware of it.

[demoniac93]

I didn't dismiss logic, human logic that is.
I simply don't worship it...
What are we but a peck in the huge universe?
There's things we CANNOT explain, and those are the things we dismiss, like how an Atheist won't accept the existence of God because God cannot be explained...
But true to my beliefs I won't be forcing my religion down peoples' throats. I'm done here.

An atheist also won't accept the existance of fairies and leprachauns and vampires for the very same reason.

It's not because there's no explanation, it's because there's no proof. The explanation for these things is that they're not real, that they're the product of human imagination. That's their explanation and the same explanation fits God perfectly.

The things that we cannot explain are simply things that science is yet to explain. The things that we can explain, can be explained thanks to science. 1000 years ago people would have explained an electric drill as being witchcraft. That's not an explanation, it's a theory, and one that isn't based on anything. Science explains perfectly the mechanisms of electromagnetism and how powerful rotational movement can be achieved by it. It can also back up that explanation with evidence.

No, you're not forcing your religion down people's throats, but you're not doing a good job of justifying your beliefs. And I'm not forcing my beliefs down anyone's throats more than every day life does to those who are aware of it.

You know what? Why don't I, instead of justifying my beliefs, prove your beliefs wrong?
You people who believe God doesn't exist, claim that everything was created by the big bang, right?
Well then where in the hell did the small volume of matter appear from, that kept expanding till it blew up?
E=mc(squared), right?
Matter transforms into energy and vice versa, and there's the preservation of energy, which states that energy keeps shifting it's type, but doesn't end and cannot be created/renewed...
If so, I say again where did that small matter of volume come from, and where did it get it's energy from?
I've just shown very precise evidence for that the big bang couldn't have happened. At least to myself it seems like evidence enough.

[Mangled*]

Not all atheists believe in the Big Bang theory. Most do. I do, and will continue to until another theory supersedes it. You're really clutching at straws here by the way, you haven't made sense let alone proved anything wrong.

Science is an ever-changing and self-improving/correcting system that serves to increase our knowledge. Scientific theories that are commonly accepted such as the Big Bang theory and Evolution are the ones that best describe and explain the world around us.

The Big Bang theory supports every astronomical observation that has ever been recorded. We're talking about observations that both date back hundreds of years made by Galileo and ones that have been made just in the last few decades.

The Big Bang theory incorporates and is reinforced by many other theories such as Black Hole theory, Newton's theory of Gravity (yes, don't forget gravity is just a theory too) and Einstein's theory of General Relativity, just to name a few.

If you're genuinely interested you should read up about it.

[demoniac93]

I've read more than enough to know matter doesn't come out of nothing.

[Lord Frunkamunch]

If that's the extent of your view, then no. You haven't read enough.

[demoniac93]

Who are you to judge?
I know that it's been a fact so far that you cannot create matter/energy...

[Mangled*]

Who are you to judge?
I know that it's been a fact so far that you cannot create matter/energy...

Big Bang theory doesn't dispute the theory that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Contrary to what you might have heard from the many Religious figures who attempt to spread misinformation and misunderstanding about the Big Bang theory to try and make it sound absurd and unfeasible, the Big Bang theory isn't that 'the whole universe exploded out of nowhere for no reason'.

The Big Bang theory maintains that all the matter in the universe was there before the Big Bang as one single mass that was probably the size of an atom. The Big Bang itself was a reaction in which all the matter and energy of this mass exploded outwards, which explains many of the things observable today such as background radiation and the fact that the universe is expanding. All of the matter is still being propelled away from the point of origin by the initial explosion.

Also, if you do understand that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed then how did God create matter/energy? Also where did God come from? Was he created? In what space does he exist? Did that space exist before God did? You see, it's the same as that what came first, the chicken or the egg question.

Science doesn't pretend to know the answers.

[demoniac93]

I know what the theory states.
Never mind, I said I won't argue...Should keep my word.

[Mangled*]

No, I don't think you do know what the theory states. If you did then I wouldn't have to keep explaining why you're wrong.

This isn't an argument. This is ignorance being slaughtered by comprehensive truth, and I think you might even be slowly coming to realise that. If you stop at this point then I'm right, because it means you've realised that you're completely out of substance to back up your illogical misconceptions.

I'd recommend you stop actually. You should take some time to think about everything you've read here and then ask yourself if the most important question in the universe can be best answered by an ancient cult book or by the indisputable facts of a modern age of information and discovery.

[ds dude]

The more science proves itself, the more bulls**t the church will make up to try to counter act it.

Theology will fall endlessly into the brilliant hole we call science.

I've read more than enough to know matter doesn't come out of nothing.

Matter was never created nor destroyed. It's been there our entire life. God is merely a superstitious life force at best that has been fabulized by the human mind.

How incoherent would we be to say that everything has to do with God? It's obessesive, it controls a person's mind to the point that he/she would even make up stuff to keep the heat inside their body.
 

[Demonic]

While demoniac ran out of reasons per his lack of understanding about the big bang theory, he did say something that's much worth noting:

But true to my beliefs I won't be forcing my religion down peoples' throats. I'm done here.

This. This is what we need more of. Aggressive conversion is the same sort of dickery regardless of the propagated views, and in no way counts as enlightment or whatever.

[Mangled*]

I agree totally about the not shoving beliefs on other people.

But to me people need to justify their beliefs. If the reason you believe something is because it's simply what you were brought up to believe isn't good enough. That's inherited belief, not the conclusion of a personal spiratural journey or mature philosophical thought process. What's worse is that it's almost mind-controlling, children are very impressionable and what they learn in childhood is very deeply rooted.

But when someone is ignorant to the point that they dismiss the blatant truth, or attack science, I really lose respect and sympathy and just give it to them straight.

 

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Also, if you do understand that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed then how did God create matter/energy? Also where did God come from? Was he created? In what space does he exist? Did that space exist before God did?

Your questions are similar to me asking why a sphere can't be represented on a one-dimensional plane, or suggesting that you explain how to make a triangle out of two lines.  You're assuming that a creator has to follow the rules of his creation, which is flat-out ridiculous.  How can you even pretend to discuss the supernatural while remaining in a natural mindset?

I feel like I've asked you this before, but what the heck, I'll do it again.  Suppose an all-powerful being does exist, and that it created the physical universe.  Using absolutely nothing but pure logic, describe to me what this being would be like.  Once you've truly and independently drawn a conclusion in your own mind about this being, perhaps then you can make a case for or against its existence and abilities.

[Mangled*]

Your questions are similar to me asking why a sphere can't be represented on a one-dimensional plane, or suggesting that you explain how to make a triangle out of two lines.  You're assuming that a creator has to follow the rules of his creation, which is flat-out ridiculous.  How can you even pretend to discuss the supernatural while remaining in a natural mindset?

You've missed the point here. I was illustrating how 'God' as an explanation leaves more questions open than explained. I also wasn't asking you.

I can discuss the supernatural in a natural mindset because the supernatural doesn't exist, and the natural world is where we exist. How can you even believe in the supernatural whilst existing in a natural world?

I feel like I've asked you this before, but what the heck, I'll do it again.  Suppose an all-powerful being does exist, and that it created the physical universe.  Using absolutely nothing but pure logic, describe to me what this being would be like.  Once you've truly and independently drawn a conclusion in your own mind about this being, perhaps then you can make a case for or against its existence and abilities.

That's similar to asking me to represent an invisible, undetectable sphere that doesn't conform to the shape of a sphere. The only part of that I can answer for certain is that if God did exist then he would not in the slightest bit resemble a human form, unlike how he is depicted and described in virtually all monotheistic religion.

I feel like I've said this to you before (in fact I know I have) things that don't exist can neither be proven or disproven. Why don't you start by disproving leprechauns or the tooth fairy, and if you can manage that then I'll disprove God.

In fact, if you can prove God exists then I'll never make another religious thread ever again. Ok? You're the believer, now put your money where your mouth is.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Your questions are similar to me asking why a sphere can't be represented on a one-dimensional plane, or suggesting that you explain how to make a triangle out of two lines.  You're assuming that a creator has to follow the rules of his creation, which is flat-out ridiculous.  How can you even pretend to discuss the supernatural while remaining in a natural mindset?

You've missed the point here. I was illustrating how 'God' as an explanation leaves more questions open than explained. I also wasn't asking you.

I don't need to be asked a question in order to take issue with it.  Besides, you're acting like it's a bad thing that we can't fully understand God.  If God was able to be fully understood by humans, he wouldn't be much of a God, would he? What would then make him greater than us, or worthy to be worshiped?

I understand that we're having a battle of "easy-outs": "we can't understand God so it must not exist" versus "God must be incomprehensible or he wouldn't be God", and of course the validity of either argument requires a preexisting mindset that's fundamentally opposed to the other.  However, that just means that each side must attempt to convince the other that their stance is foolish: you must convince me that assuming reality we can't understand exists is irrelevant and ridiculous, and I must convince you that believing in only the scientifically observable is narrow-minded and short-sighted.  That said, let's get to it.

I can discuss the supernatural in a natural mindset because the supernatural doesn't exist, and the natural world is where we exist. How can you even believe in the supernatural whilst existing in a natural world?

I'm going to use the dimensional argument again, since it seems the most readily applicable to the situation.  If we existed in a two-dimensional world, why should we believe that a third dimension exists? How could we comprehend it?  The answer, of course, is that we understand that our 2D world is incomprehensible yet far superior to a one-dimensional world, and it only makes sense that a third dimension would also exist, similarly trumping ours.

Or consider a painting.  Should one be sentient, it would know nothing except its own composition.  It would know that it must not have always existed, and that somehow, something must have created it.  It would probably logically conclude that its elements and details represented something in the creator's mind; that is, some aspect of the creator.  But how could it know anything beyond what it was? Could it comprehend that the same creator could also produce sculptures, or use watercolors instead of oil paints? Of course not.  That painting can understand nothing except what it is, though it would be foolish to assume that it always existed and that there were no outside forces besides the ones it knew.

I feel like I've asked you this before, but what the heck, I'll do it again.  Suppose an all-powerful being does exist, and that it created the physical universe.  Using absolutely nothing but pure logic, describe to me what this being would be like.  Once you've truly and independently drawn a conclusion in your own mind about this being, perhaps then you can make a case for or against its existence and abilities.

That's similar to asking me to represent an invisible, undetectable sphere that doesn't conform to the shape of a sphere. The only part of that I can answer for certain is that if God did exist then he would not in the slightest bit resemble a human form, unlike how he is depicted and described in virtually all monotheistic religion.

I feel like I've said this to you before (in fact I know I have) things that don't exist can neither be proven or disproven. Why don't you start by disproving leprechauns or the tooth fairy, and if you can manage that then I'll disprove God.

In fact, if you can prove God exists then I'll never make another religious thread ever again. Ok? You're the believer, now put your money where your mouth is.

The key problem here is your second paragraph.  You've precluded that God doesn't exist, and that it's impossible to prove otherwise.  If that's the case, what can I say that will convince you of God's existence? You've already decided any of my arguments are wrong before even hearing them, haven't you?

[Shard]

I feel like I started something, something bad....And now this thread has been abducted. Yet it is a highly interesting discussion.

I like how my posts have been ignored on the actual matter at hand and everything has spiraled out.

[Demonic]

I feel like I started something, something bad....And now this thread has been abducted. Yet it is a highly interesting discussion.

I like how my posts have been ignored on the actual matter at hand and everything has spiraled out.

Might have something to do with the fact that reading and understanding your posts is about the same level of enjoyment as sucking on a turned on cattleprod.

[pavliko]

I wonder... If i start fapping on the bible, will god stop me? Will he punish me? Maybe if i start fapping on it then i start seeing the truth that no one else see?