Stop what you're doing and laugh at the U.S.

[Horve]

finish him

[croat1gamer]

@ iDante-
The reasoning behind the "christian god" is actually quite simple if you know this and that from history.

Back then, Jesus promised to those who live good lives and stuff eternal afterlife, which was then quite a thing, because a normal commoner, whose life was mostly around getting some wealth for his children after he dies, surely favoured the idea of an eternal afterlife and showing that any individual would have his meaning, not just an another statistic. And so the religion flourished, even while being prosecuted and such.

When the fall of the Roman Empire started (cca. 3rd-4th century) and the emperors embodiment as the earthly and divine ruler was slowly fading, they had to find something common between them and the populace, and christianity would be one of those things.
The population started accepting the emperor as their earthly ruler who would spread their religion to the barbaric tribes and so on.

A small fast forward from the 3rd-4th century to the 7th century.
Same happened here, the Frank king Charles the great (aka. Charlemange) realized that the barbaric ways wouldnt make his kingdom prosper anymore because the only thing they were until then was pillaging and destroying the roman culture and waging war with neighboring states.
He started encouraging creation of culture, and as a medium between him/his state and the other tribes he picked religion.

Big fast forward, during the centuries the practice of religion was handed down from the ancestors to descendants and it was the only thing the population of Europe knew.
Probably the main thing that made christianity the 'main' religion of the world is that the european countries were the first to discover the new world, settle it and slowly bring everything else under its grasp.

-Id like to excuse myself for any inconsistencies here, made it in somewhat of a rush.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

@ iDante-
The reasoning behind the "christian god" is actually quite simple if you know this and that from history.

Back then, Jesus promised to those who live good lives and stuff eternal afterlife, which was then quite a thing, because a normal commoner, whose life was mostly around getting some wealth for his children after he dies, surely favoured the idea of an eternal afterlife and showing that any individual would have his meaning, not just an another statistic. And so the religion flourished, even while being prosecuted and such.

I don't have time to post more of a response to either your or iDante, but it's rather worthwhile to note that the concept of Heaven really didn't start with Jesus.  I know it goes back at least as far as Moses, who lived several thousand years before the New Testament.

[DarkCrusade]

I thought Jesus said that the Kingdom of God was near, and that people should literally turn around (be christened [-> John the Baptist]) and believe in Jesus' God. It was a time in which people believed this Kingdom of God was actually near, and they feared the world would come to an end.

But thanks for clearing me up, Croat..

[croat1gamer]

P.S. I know the bible. I actually read it and i know a lot of the background on it.

P.P.S. The three main monotheistic religions- christianity, islam and judaism are interconnected.
Bareboned/totally simplified, christianity is considering the New Testament a "canon" addon to the judaistic Old Testament (aka. Torah, Talmud and im not sure if there are any other named books); whereas islam is considering Jesus (and Mohammed) 'just' two other prophets.
Also, judaism is based on some even older religions, the mesopotamian civilizations' religions. Compare the Epic of Gilgamesh and some older parts of the Old Testament (pre Moses iirc) for an example.
Even a simple name comparison can prove the interconnections.

[Veritas]

before the Big Bang

The accepted model is that time began at the Big Bang, making this statement entirely nonsensical.

Nope. The accepted model is that it's yet to be determined what the universe was like before the Big Bang.

You're confusing ``accepted model" with ``things I've read in Pop Sci."

The accepted model is that the Big Bang is a singularity, making "before the Big Bang" nonsense. There are proposals that singularities don't exist, but to present what you're saying as anything more than that is utter bollocks.

You know those eyes that God gave you? Have you learned how to use them yet? Read the above quote box repeatedly until you understand anything about what I stated. You're making an assertion that can't be made about me making an assertion that I haven't made.

If the Big Bang is a singularity, it is not "yet to be determined what the universe was like before the Big Bang," it is literally impossible to know what came before the Big Bang. There is a significant difference between the two.

[DarkCrusade]

How can you say it's impossible? 120 years ago, people thought they were about to die when they saw the first film, which showed a train driving towards the audience. For them it was impossible. Today, we're laughing at these narrow-minded people. Maybe we'll laugh about you when the time has come

[Veritas]

How can you say it's impossible? 120 years ago, people thought they were about to die when they saw the first film, which showed a train driving towards the audience. For them it was impossible. Today, we're laughing at these narrow-minded people. Maybe we'll laugh about you when the time has come

This argument can be applied to any statement, including the existence of God. Proooooooobably don't want to use it.


That said it is actually, really, truly impossible to go any farther back in time when dealing with a singularity. Whether there is a singularity at t = 0 is an entirely different question, but the Big Bang model does feature it (though not without problems).

[iDante]

We may find out more about the big bang and what preceded it, but Veritas is right that quantum theory and general relativity break down in a singularity and thus we cannot know what happened before. It would take a major breakthrough to go there, which may or may not (but probably won't) happen.

That doesn't really pertain to the existence of a creator though. Just because we don't know what happened before doesn't mean that god did it.

@croat1gamer: I know historically all about the rise of christianity, what I would like to know is why people still choose to stick to it despite it being so obviously wrong. Is childhood indoctrination really that lasting?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

That said it is actually, really, truly impossible to go any farther back in time when dealing with a singularity.

Indeed.  Discovering what happened before a singularity is like measuring the fourth side of a triangle.  It's logically impossible.

[ValiS]

@croat1gamer: I know historically all about the rise of christianity, what I would like to know is why people still choose to stick to it despite it being so obviously wrong. Is childhood indoctrination really that lasting?

There are many reasons, but the most usual is that people are afraid to believe in themselves, to decide/recognise what is right and wrong by themselves, so they choose smth that a billion people already believe and that has authority and tradition, they think hey so many people must be more right than they can be. Some people are terrified by the thought that their lives may be ultimately random and not for some big purpose, but everybody wants to be important. Some people know what is important to them even if nobody else thinks like them, others dont know and follow the herd.

Some just use religion to justify their actions and/or to control other people, to fit in a community and to not be considered weird or a satanist or whatever.

I have never met a real christian yet, all the christians i know.. well, their actions and/or views are selfish, and as I understand a christian is not supposed to be selfish. Or are they? Because they can just say they are sorry and its cool again.


PS
Notice how the army and the church have very similar structure. There is strict hierarchy, rules concerning ranking up in that hierarchy, visible symbols to let others know of their rank, there is a book that has the rules in it, punishments for those who break these rules. And the most important similarity is that they both have to adapt to the current state of the world and change their rules accordingly.

[croat1gamer]

@ iDante- Im not that experienced with it, but it surely left an impressive mark because it was the only thing that the most people knew besides their obligations to their ruler. That sort of things started changing somewhere around the 18th-19th century with the rise of free time, better education and similar.
Unfortunately, with the ~15 centuries of religious superiority on all social levels created something like an illusive peer pressure, where admitting that you arent a part of it is blamed by some even if they are only "religious by paper" because of the "OHMIGOSH, he isnt one of us, and doesnt agree on what is accepted by 1/3 of the world!" mentality.

@ valis- That is actually quite simple. To create order in a society, it must have a firm structure, which can be brought only by a set of rules and so on.
If it wasnt for something like that during any period of time, chaos and anarchy could break out as soon as someone managed to put his vote over someone's else's in a society where everyone has the right to vote and some importance as a single person. (Direct democracy)
Even the greek (or athenian) democracy didnt include everyone in it.
The excluded were children, women, slaves and strangers/barbarians; and even if everyone else had "the right to rule", they picked people who they perceived as the best choice to make their town prosper and they gave them the right to rule.
You know the proverb "Let a man be his own judge, and all the verdicts will be liberating"

-Agh. Again in a rush, i probably missed something or made an error here or there.

[Mangled*]

Okay, again, is anyone else having trouble understanding what I'm saying, or is it still just Mangled*? I need to know if I'm being unclear or if I'm just dealing with an idiot (or more generously, a troll).

For the last time, there's a difference between the intuitive nature of a natural law and the natural law itself.  The two are not the same thing.  Just because a person has a bad haircut doesn't make him a bad person, and just because the intuitiveness of a law is trivial doesn't mean the law itself is trivial.

You only wish I was just an idiot or a troll. It seems to be that you have misunderstood what I have been saying all along. So let me spell it out to you because you obviously need me to: People who do not comprehend the unintuitive nature of the universe can perceive it to be intuitive, and their expectations and assumptions based on that premise are often wildly different from reality because of that. It is just like physicists say: "if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics... then you don't understand Quantum Mechanics".

Better understanding = better knowledge.
Lesser understanding = lesser knowledge.

Better knowledge x perception of the universe = more likely to be correct.
Lesser knowledge x perception of the universe = less likely to be correct.

You can say it's trivial all you like, but applying that lesser knowledge to your understanding leads you exponentially further away from the real answer. It's trivial if you want it to be trivial, but then your perception itself is trivial.

End of argument because this is as far as I can simplify it for you without going insane.

And you're missing the point, yet again.  The ONLY point of the analogy was to show that we can't have any knowledge of what happened before the Big Bang.  No further presumptions were made.

The analogy doesn't work because the 'machine' in the image allows for knowledge of what happened before the machine started working. Because it's constructed by man made materials that we can compare to others that we know of. If you think the analogy works then you must somehow be able to block out incoming information. I can't do that so it doesn't work for me.

Maybe that explains a lot about us.

No, it wasn't that, though I'll address it shortly.  It was more of you aggressively missing the point of everything I'm saying and taking potshots at me because of it: "you don't REALLY appreciate the complexity of the world; none of your sort does" "you're not very perceptive because I think you're saying something you're not" "your analogies suck even though the fault is really with me because I don't understand what analogies are"

You know, that sort of thing: attacks against me instead of against my arguments.  That's what ticked me off.

I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out holes in your arguments. To you they may not be holes, they might be insignificant from your perspective.

The machine analogy doesn't work because you just as well could have used a picture of a toy car and said 'we don't know anything that could have happened before this photo was taken' and then I could say 'well clearly someone placed the toy car there, and before that it was manufactured, so we can know some things about what could have happened before the photo'. If your analogy in an argument allows for two opposite interpretations it can't be a good one.

What do you want me to say to, "I have a logical interpretation of God, too"? "No you don't"? Where does that get us, besides an endless loop of "no u"s? I've said my piece, you've said yours, they're fundamentally at odds with each other, so carrying on that particular discussion is pointless.

Yeah it would be endless... I'll grab some popcorn then, since my interpretation is objective and not biased towards a preconcieved conclusion. You believe in God becasue you believe in God. But I'm not an atheist because I'm an atheist. Let's carry on with it.

That said it is actually, really, truly impossible to go any farther back in time when dealing with a singularity. Whether there is a singularity at t = 0 is an entirely different question, but the Big Bang model does feature it (though not without problems).

You percieve time to have had a beginning. AGAIN you are looking at the universe in a human perspective. t does not equal 0 it equals x. The singularity is not at 0 it is at y. You do not know the values of x or y and yet you are drawing conclusions based on your premise that for some reason time couldn't possibly exist before the Big Bang.

Let me spell it out:

Gravity affects time. - We do not fully understand why yet.
Gravity causes singularities. - We do understand why but we don't fully understand what gravity is yet.

Your conclusion that time did not exist before the Big Bang is baseless.

finish him

Veritas you're confusing "accepted model" with "things I've read in Pop Sci".

Unfortunately since you lack the ability to comprehend my points or provide any intelligable counter-points I am forced to cease responding to any of your further arguments in this thread.

Indeed.  Discovering what happened before a singularity is like measuring the fourth side of a triangle.  It's logically impossible.

No, this is another analogy that does  not work (LOL). A better analogy would be it's like measuring the side of a shape which you haven't found yet. This analogy works. Learn from this.

[demoniac93]

@croat1gamer: I know historically all about the rise of christianity, what I would like to know is why people still choose to stick to it despite it being so obviously wrong. Is childhood indoctrination really that lasting?

There are many reasons, but the most usual is that people are afraid to believe in themselves, to decide/recognise what is right and wrong by themselves, so they choose smth that a billion people already believe and that has authority and tradition, they think hey so many people must be more right than they can be. Some people are terrified by the thought that their lives may be ultimately random and not for some big purpose, but everybody wants to be important. Some people know what is important to them even if nobody else thinks like them, others dont know and follow the herd.

Some just use religion to justify their actions and/or to control other people, to fit in a community and to not be considered weird or a satanist or whatever.

I have never met a real christian yet, all the christians i know.. well, their actions and/or views are selfish, and as I understand a christian is not supposed to be selfish. Or are they? Because they can just say they are sorry and its cool again.


PS
Notice how the army and the church have very similar structure. There is strict hierarchy, rules concerning ranking up in that hierarchy, visible symbols to let others know of their rank, there is a book that has the rules in it, punishments for those who break these rules. And the most important similarity is that they both have to adapt to the current state of the world and change their rules accordingly.

You guys really, REALLY need to start asking the right people.
Ask any Christian who's a dedicated Christian whether Christianity is a religion of Must/Mustn't-s, or choice.
Christianity doesn't force anything on anyone, on the contrary, it gives you complete freedom to do whatever you want, at your own responsibility.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I have never met a real christian yet, all the christians i know.. well, their actions and/or views are selfish, and as I understand a christian is not supposed to be selfish. Or are they? Because they can just say they are sorry and its cool again.

"Real" Christian may be the wrong descriptor, but I would say it's not at all unlikely that you've never met a GOOD Christian.  Heck, I've only ever met them at church.  But believe me, they're really quite incredible people.

And you're missing the point, yet again.  The ONLY point of the analogy was to show that we can't have any knowledge of what happened before the Big Bang.  No further presumptions were made.

The analogy doesn't work because the 'machine' in the image allows for knowledge of what happened before the machine started working. Because it's constructed by man made materials that we can compare to others that we know of. If you think the analogy works then you must somehow be able to block out incoming information. I can't do that so it doesn't work for me.

Maybe that explains a lot about us.

Maybe it does, but an inability to see the forest for the trees isn't a good quality.

Besides, ALL analogies require you to block out irrelevant information.  Mine aren't unique in that respect, and if you think they are, then feel free to share an analogy that DOESN'T require some suspension of information.

No, it wasn't that, though I'll address it shortly.  It was more of you aggressively missing the point of everything I'm saying and taking potshots at me because of it: "you don't REALLY appreciate the complexity of the world; none of your sort does" "you're not very perceptive because I think you're saying something you're not" "your analogies suck even though the fault is really with me because I don't understand what analogies are"

You know, that sort of thing: attacks against me instead of against my arguments.  That's what ticked me off.

I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out holes in your arguments. To you they may not be holes, they might be insignificant from your perspective.

The machine analogy doesn't work because you just as well could have used a picture of a toy car and said 'we don't know anything that could have happened before this photo was taken' and then I could say 'well clearly someone placed the toy car there, and before that it was manufactured, so we can know some things about what could have happened before the photo'. If your analogy in an argument allows for two opposite interpretations it can't be a good one.

So that I don't get accused of "evading" your points again, I'll just say to see my above response.  Give me an analogy that doesn't allow for two opposite interpretations and then we'll talk.  Otherwise you're just spouting hot air.

What do you want me to say to, "I have a logical interpretation of God, too"? "No you don't"? Where does that get us, besides an endless loop of "no u"s? I've said my piece, you've said yours, they're fundamentally at odds with each other, so carrying on that particular discussion is pointless.

Yeah it would be endless... I'll grab some popcorn then, since my interpretation is objective and not biased towards a preconceived conclusion. You believe in God becasue you believe in God. But I'm not an atheist because I'm an atheist. Let's carry on with it.

It most certainly is biased towards a preconceived conclusion.  You think God doesn't exist, so you support a point of view that says he doesn't exist.  I think he does, so I support a point of view that says he does.  That's all there is to it.

Indeed.  Discovering what happened before a singularity is like measuring the fourth side of a triangle.  It's logically impossible.

No, this is another analogy that does not work (LOL). A better analogy would be it's like measuring the side of a shape which you haven't found yet. This analogy works. Learn from this.

You're funny.

Your conclusion that time did not exist before the Big Bang is baseless.

And yet, it's still a commonly accepted belief in the scientific community.  Given that it's generally understood that time as we know it began with the Big Bang (whether or not it did may be a matter of debate, but that's not the point here), asking what happened before that point is asking what happened before time itself.  That's illogical, hence my analogy was an apt one.

[homerofgods]

@croat1gamer: I know historically all about the rise of christianity, what I would like to know is why people still choose to stick to it despite it being so obviously wrong. Is childhood indoctrination really that lasting?

There are many reasons, but the most usual is that people are afraid to believe in themselves, to decide/recognise what is right and wrong by themselves, so they choose smth that a billion people already believe and that has authority and tradition, they think hey so many people must be more right than they can be. Some people are terrified by the thought that their lives may be ultimately random and not for some big purpose, but everybody wants to be important. Some people know what is important to them even if nobody else thinks like them, others dont know and follow the herd.

Some just use religion to justify their actions and/or to control other people, to fit in a community and to not be considered weird or a satanist or whatever.

I have never met a real christian yet, all the christians i know.. well, their actions and/or views are selfish, and as I understand a christian is not supposed to be selfish. Or are they? Because they can just say they are sorry and its cool again.


PS
Notice how the army and the church have very similar structure. There is strict hierarchy, rules concerning ranking up in that hierarchy, visible symbols to let others know of their rank, there is a book that has the rules in it, punishments for those who break these rules. And the most important similarity is that they both have to adapt to the current state of the world and change their rules accordingly.

You guys really, REALLY need to start asking the right people.
Ask any Christian who's a dedicated Christian whether Christianity is a religion of Must/Mustn't-s, or choice.
Christianity doesn't force anything on anyone, on the contrary, it gives you complete freedom to do whatever you want, at your own responsibility.

Ye, you can do homosexuality or abortion, but you will be tortured for all eternity for it. gg  .. or was that a metaphor?
I wonder what the bible say about dinosaurs, did they exist before God created the world? lol

[demoniac93]

@croat1gamer: I know historically all about the rise of christianity, what I would like to know is why people still choose to stick to it despite it being so obviously wrong. Is childhood indoctrination really that lasting?

There are many reasons, but the most usual is that people are afraid to believe in themselves, to decide/recognise what is right and wrong by themselves, so they choose smth that a billion people already believe and that has authority and tradition, they think hey so many people must be more right than they can be. Some people are terrified by the thought that their lives may be ultimately random and not for some big purpose, but everybody wants to be important. Some people know what is important to them even if nobody else thinks like them, others dont know and follow the herd.

Some just use religion to justify their actions and/or to control other people, to fit in a community and to not be considered weird or a satanist or whatever.

I have never met a real christian yet, all the christians i know.. well, their actions and/or views are selfish, and as I understand a christian is not supposed to be selfish. Or are they? Because they can just say they are sorry and its cool again.


PS
Notice how the army and the church have very similar structure. There is strict hierarchy, rules concerning ranking up in that hierarchy, visible symbols to let others know of their rank, there is a book that has the rules in it, punishments for those who break these rules. And the most important similarity is that they both have to adapt to the current state of the world and change their rules accordingly.

You guys really, REALLY need to start asking the right people.
Ask any Christian who's a dedicated Christian whether Christianity is a religion of Must/Mustn't-s, or choice.
Christianity doesn't force anything on anyone, on the contrary, it gives you complete freedom to do whatever you want, at your own responsibility.

Ye, you can do homosexuality or abortion, but you will be tortured for all eternity for it. gg  .. or was that a metaphor?
I wonder what the bible say about dinosaurs, did they exist before God created the world? lol

Hey, I never tell anyone not to be homosexual, it's their choice, I don't force my beliefs on them. Also, not everyone who commits a sin burns in hell, there are factors such as the presence of will, intent, and freedom to choose, alongside with things like pressure and religious background or lack thereof.
Seeing as this is a serious discussion, it would be better if you just stayed out of it, because joking about it will get you nowhere.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Ye, you can do homosexuality or abortion, but you will be tortured for all eternity for it. gg  .. or was that a metaphor?

We look at abortion as murder and homosexuality as a corruption of human sexuality (arguably, like lust or infidelity).  They're sins just like any other, and they're not a "surer" ticket to hell then lying or stealing or something like that.  Every sin gets treated the same way by God.

I wonder what the bible say about dinosaurs, did they exist before God created the world? lol

wat

But, for what it's worth, the Bible does mention dinosaurs in the book of Job.  So...no, they probably didn't exist before God created the world.

Also, not everyone who commits a sin burns in hell, there are factors such as the presence of will, intent, and freedom to choose, alongside with things like pressure and religious background or lack thereof.

Oh boy.  That's not what the Bible says, buddy.

[iDante]

But, for what it's worth, the Bible does mention dinosaurs in the book of Job.  So...no, they probably didn't exist before God created the world.

Are you a young earth creationist?

I would like to take this moment to note that in every single scientific study done on the subject, being homosexual is NOT a choice. Homosexuals were born that way. It is extremely common in other animals to be homosexual, and yet you call it "corruption of human sexuality." Sorry but that's just immoral.

[demoniac93]

But, for what it's worth, the Bible does mention dinosaurs in the book of Job.  So...no, they probably didn't exist before God created the world.

Are you a young earth creationist?

I would like to take this moment to note that in every single scientific study done on the subject, being homosexual is NOT a choice. Homosexuals were born that way. It is extremely common in other animals to be homosexual, and yet you call it "corruption of human sexuality." Sorry but that's just immoral.

As I said some pages (Or threads perhaps) back: Homosexuality is nothing more than a taboo, and certain people get a rush out of it, it actually is a choice.

@LAW gamer: It's what the teachings of the Catholic church in Rome say.