449 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

massive_effect wrote...

The C-Sec officer, Baily, joked about sending him a Christmas card. The reason I think this is cool is that most science fiction posits that Christianity will die out. Since Christianity has only grown over 2000 years, it makes sense that it would last another two hundred.

(Please don't turn this into a religious war topic. This is just an observation of a rarity in sci-fi.)

Herpes, deaths, births, waffle eaters, the french, cars, shirts, bullets, waffles, and many many many other things have grown. I think it has something to do with population and it getting larger...

[Ryzaki]

massive_effect wrote...


Quick history lesson:

1) God made Man.
2) Man sinned.
3) God could not remain with Man in a sinful state (just like a cheating spouse).
4) Man lost faith and made pagan religions, except for Jews.
5) Pagan parents taught kids pagan religion.
6) Jewish parents taught kids the truth.
7) Jesus was sent as promised to the Jews.
8) 2200 years later, Officer Bailey jokes about sending him a Christmas card.

My point is that there is a real history to what parents teach. It is not make-believe junk.

....that is unproveable. And I'm not into this argument because an atheist and a christian debating religion makes as much sense as an pro-choice and pro-lifer arguing abortion. You're not going to get anywhere. Have a good day.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 mars 2010 - 01:41 .

[PyroFreak301]

massive_effect wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

massive_effect wrote...

PyroFreak301 wrote...

massive_effect wrote...
Also, it is common for atheists to compare unicorns, big foot, faires, etc...to faith in God. You are right that you could tell a child a lie about a vengeful unicorn, and he would likely believe it for a short time. He would be deceived, though. This is the challenge of faith. The only thing you can do is seek the truth. Effort is required.

I know it's going to be closed, but I'll say my part anyway.

Surely if this child was brought up in a closed society where everyone believed in the same unicorn, they would go their entire life believing it was just as real as you feel your God to be. Word of your 'true' God would sound just as alien to them as a Hindu God would to you. "It's common for non-believers to compare them to humans, deny His true unicorn shape etc".  I don't see how it's any different from real world christianity.

The questions you could ask yourself are: Why don't most people believe crazy things like Big Foot, or magic unicorns? Why do most people believe in God?

Because they're raised to believe its real from a young age. What else? 

No different than other countries believing in their gods/goddess. They were raised to do so or found the religion did something for them (brought comfort, among other things).

Quick history lesson:

1) God made Man.
2) Man sinned.
3) God could not remain with Man in a sinful state (just like a cheating spouse).
4) Man lost faith and made pagan religions, except for Jews.
5) Pagan parents taught kids pagan religion.
6) Jewish parents taught kids the truth.
7) Jesus was sent as promised to the Jews.
8) 2200 years later, Officer Bailey jokes about sending him a Christmas card.

My point is that there is a real history to what parents teach. It is not make-believe junk.

Out of interest, do you believe in the Genesis creation story or Evolution (God driven or otherwise)?

[EternalWolfe]

massive_effect wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

massive_effect wrote...

PyroFreak301 wrote...

massive_effect wrote...
Also, it is common for atheists to compare unicorns, big foot, faires, etc...to faith in God. You are right that you could tell a child a lie about a vengeful unicorn, and he would likely believe it for a short time. He would be deceived, though. This is the challenge of faith. The only thing you can do is seek the truth. Effort is required.

I know it's going to be closed, but I'll say my part anyway.

Surely if this child was brought up in a closed society where everyone believed in the same unicorn, they would go their entire life believing it was just as real as you feel your God to be. Word of your 'true' God would sound just as alien to them as a Hindu God would to you. "It's common for non-believers to compare them to humans, deny His true unicorn shape etc".  I don't see how it's any different from real world christianity.

The questions you could ask yourself are: Why don't most people believe crazy things like Big Foot, or magic unicorns? Why do most people believe in God?

Because they're raised to believe its real from a young age. What else? 

No different than other countries believing in their gods/goddess. They were raised to do so or found the religion did something for them (brought comfort, among other things).

Quick history lesson:

1) God made Man.
2) Man sinned.
3) God could not remain with Man in a sinful state (just like a cheating spouse).
4) Man lost faith and made pagan religions, except for Jews.
5) Pagan parents taught kids pagan religion.
6) Jewish parents taught kids the truth.
7) Jesus was sent as promised to the Jews.
8) 2200 years later, Officer Bailey jokes about sending him a Christmas card.

My point is that there is a real history to what parents teach. It is not make-believe junk.

Weren't you the one who stated you didn't want this to turn into a religious war?  And isn't that what you're doing now?

Plus that is history as your religion sees it, please don't try to state it as fact and force it down other peoples throats.  That's what starts religious arguments to start with - one person telling another in no certain terms "You're wrong, my religion is correct."

Edit; And, in relation to the original point of the thread(which as since then fallen so far downhill we've popped out the otherside of the world) Christmas is a heavily commerical holiday with points on family togetherness in current times, I don't see why it would die out, its good for social health, good for business, ect.  Christanity may or may not still be connected with it.  I doubt they've been completly lost into the sands of time.

Modifié par EternalWolfe, 01 mars 2010 - 01:51 .

[addiction21]

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.
Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone about it, the Earth was unexpectedly demolished to make way for a new hyperspace bypass, and so the idea was lost, seemingly for ever.
This is not her story.

-So Long and Thanks for All the Fish
Douglas Adams

P.S.

"I think we have different value systems." —Arthur
"Well mine's better." —[i]Ford 

( I thought it was fitting)

Modifié par addiction21, 01 mars 2010 - 01:50 .

[EternalWolfe]

addiction21 wrote...

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.
Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone about it, the Earth was unexpectedly demolished to make way for a new hyperspace bypass, and so the idea was lost, seemingly for ever.
This is not her story.

-So Long and Thanks for All the Fish
Douglas Adams

P.S.

"I think we have different value systems." —Arthur
"Well mine's better." —[i]Ford 

( I thought it was fitting)

You forgot:

"In the beginning, the world was created.  This has made many people very angry and is widely regarded as bad move."

(May or may not be completly correct word for word, but its the basic gist)

[ImperialOperative]

addiction21 wrote...

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.
Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone about it, the Earth was unexpectedly demolished to make way for a new hyperspace bypass, and so the idea was lost, seemingly for ever.
This is not her story.

-So Long and Thanks for All the Fish
Douglas Adams

P.S.

"I think we have different value systems." —Arthur
"Well mine's better." —Ford 

( I thought it was fitting)

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool.
They lay. They rotted. They turned
Around occasionally.
Bits of flesh dropped off them from
Time to time.
And sank into the pool's mire.[i]
They also smelt a great deal.

Modifié par ImperialOperative, 01 mars 2010 - 01:57 .

[addiction21]

EternalWolfe wrote...



You forgot:

"In the beginning, the world was created.  This has made many people very angry and is widely regarded as bad move."

(May or may not be completly correct word for word, but its the basic gist)

The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

I believe that is the one you are looking for.
I also would like to include:

He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.

[DarthCaine]

javierabegazo forgot to lock the thread, lol

[EternalWolfe]

addiction21 wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...



You forgot:

"In the beginning, the world was created.  This has made many people very angry and is widely regarded as bad move."

(May or may not be completly correct word for word, but its the basic gist)

The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

I believe that is the one you are looking for.
I also would like to include:

He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.

Ah, thank you.  Its been a while since I read this.

[Dogmatic Atheist]

vhatever wrote...

Dogmatic Atheist wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Wow. Within six pages some guy who has actually named his profile "atheist" is arguing that atheism isn't a religion, yet he acts like a damn preacher of it. This is the reason I despise atheism gentlemen. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Despite what they say they have no "scientific basis" over a theist or deist or just about anybody, and despite what they think, they aren't the ones to determine what is logical or illogical.

Wow, how wrong you are, sir. There is no "scientific basis" for atheism because atheism doesn't make a scientific claim. The burden of proof lies with the theist, and the atheist just feels that the theist hasn't presented a strong enough argument. That's it.

Secondly, what's hypocritical about correcting other people's misconceptions about atheism?

If you don't think the argument is strong enough to make a distinction, then you cannot be an atheist. An atheist makes the distinction with all currently available information. You are refering to a more agnostic position. You aren't correcting anything, just looking really dumb.

You're confusing absence of belief with belief of absence. No atheist can claim with absolute certainty there is no god, it cannot be proven either way. However an atheist can say that the probability of there being a god is near zero. 

I think this sums it up perfectly:

http://friendlyathei...-believe-in.jpg

Modifié par Dogmatic Atheist, 01 mars 2010 - 02:03 .

[Roxlimn]

The reason Christmas exists in the Citadel is because humans (and apparently humaniform aliens) need to have faith in something that lies beyond what their empirical evidence tells them is probable. It could have been called literally anything, but calling it "Christmas" is a good shorthand that tells us what is meant without having us dig through a Codex entry. I imagine it makes it easier to voice-act as well.



Apart from that is the need for humans (and apparently also humaniform aliens) to mark the passage of time and various calendar events with various celebrations. "New Year" has been almost completely secular for quite a while, and the event is totally arbitrary. In fact, the Chinese celebrate a completely separate New Year according to their calender. It's not too far fetched to think that, as secular and large as Christmas has become in human consciousness, that it will persist long after anything about any religion or belief system has been proven or disproven, or forgotten, or etched permanently into human culture.



Heck, 500 years from now, humanity could all be Bhuddists, and we could still be celebrating Christmas.

[PyroFreak301]

DarthCaine wrote...

javierabegazo forgot to lock the thread, lol

He said he would give it a day for a link to a group to appear if people so wished. I don't think we're using this time right.

On a side note, has anyone seen the documentary "Deborah 13: Servant of God"? It was aired in the UK a while back. It's absolutely heartbreaking to see the effect that fundamentalist indoctrination has on a child. Well worth a watch if you can find it online somewhere.

[vhatever]

Dogmatic Atheist wrote...

vhatever wrote...

Dogmatic Atheist wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Wow. Within six pages some guy who has actually named his profile "atheist" is arguing that atheism isn't a religion, yet he acts like a damn preacher of it. This is the reason I despise atheism gentlemen. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Despite what they say they have no "scientific basis" over a theist or deist or just about anybody, and despite what they think, they aren't the ones to determine what is logical or illogical.

Wow, how wrong you are, sir. There is no "scientific basis" for atheism because atheism doesn't make a scientific claim. The burden of proof lies with the theist, and the atheist just feels that the theist hasn't presented a strong enough argument. That's it.

Secondly, what's hypocritical about correcting other people's misconceptions about atheism?

If you don't think the argument is strong enough to make a distinction, then you cannot be an atheist. An atheist makes the distinction with all currently available information. You are refering to a more agnostic position. You aren't correcting anything, just looking really dumb.

You're confusing absence of belief with belief of absence. No atheist can claim with absolute certainty there is no god, it cannot be proven either way. However an atheist can say that the probability of there being a god is near zero. 

How can you say the probability of a god is near zero? Where is your formal mathematical or logical proof for such a statement? You are the one who is confused. And I get tired of repeating myself: You are confusing agnostic with atheist.

[Ryzaki]

Oh for pete's sake.


ag·nos·tic
   /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3.
of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4.
asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Origin:
—Related forms
ag·nos·ti·cal·ly, adverb

—Can be confused: agnostic, atheist, deist, theist (see synonym note at atheist).

—Synonyms
1. See atheist.


ag·nos·tic (āg-nŏs'tĭk)
n.
1.
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1.

Relating to or being an agnostic.
2.

Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).


[a-1 + Gnostic.]
ag·nos'ti·cal·ly adv.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnōsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals—"ists," as he called them—who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.


–nouna person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist
—Related formsan·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective
—Can be confused: agnostic, atheist, deist, theist (see synonym note at this entry).
—Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic
is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about
the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any
religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Learn the bloody difference people. <_<

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 mars 2010 - 02:11 .

[Cris Shepard]

Whoever created religion is an ****.. Seriously, look what that one person has done. Arguing about such a useless topic on a video game forum.. Not just this forum though, look at all the wars of the past, look at all the flame wars on so many internet forums and so on.. So much anger and hate towards each other just because of one simple word, RELIGION..



Sure everyone has the right to believe in what they wish, but most people just believe what others told them to believe. Many times my grandmother got mad at me for deciding not to go to church with her, I simply told her, "I don't believe in god, I have no reason to sit through a mass and listen to a bunch of garbage".. People preach their own beliefs like what they are saying is fact.. Yet I see no evidence that there was ever a god, in fact I do not see any evidence that anything in the bible ever happened.. Not saying I solely believe in scientific theories, I have my own theories I believe in that are just extensions of other theories, I have no evidence that mine are true but TO ME they seem more believable, but to all the brainwashed religious nuts, they believe what is believable to someone else.. We obtained the gift of free thought yet NO1 USES it to it's fullest..



FLAME ME ALL YOU WANT, I honestly didn't think any of MASS EFFECT'S fans were as religious as some of the people here.. Most religious people I have talked to believe we are the only Intelligent life forms in the universe, then wtf are you doing playing a game about aliens that are smarter than us..? You gonna start saying that GOD created them too, even tho "GOD" apparently looks like an old human man with a golden walking stick and a long white beard..



I leave this thread now still not believing in god.. BYE BYE

[addiction21]

Damnit do not drag agnosticism into this.

[PyroFreak301]

Cris Shepard wrote...

Whoever created religion is an ****.. Seriously, look what that one person has done. Arguing about such a useless topic on a video game forum.. Not just this forum though, look at all the wars of the past, look at all the flame wars on so many internet forums and so on.. So much anger and hate towards each other just because of one simple word, RELIGION..

Sure everyone has the right to believe in what they wish, but most people just believe what others told them to believe. Many times my grandmother got mad at me for deciding not to go to church with her, I simply told her, "I don't believe in god, I have no reason to sit through a mass and listen to a bunch of garbage".. People preach their own beliefs like what they are saying is fact.. Yet I see no evidence that there was ever a god, in fact I do not see any evidence that anything in the bible ever happened.. Not saying I solely believe in scientific theories, I have my own theories I believe in that are just extensions of other theories, I have no evidence that mine are true but TO ME they seem more believable, but to all the brainwashed religious nuts, they believe what is believable to someone else.. We obtained the gift of free thought yet NO1 USES it to it's fullest..

FLAME ME ALL YOU WANT, I honestly didn't think any of MASS EFFECT'S fans were as religious as some of the people here.. Most religious people I have talked to believe we are the only Intelligent life forms in the universe, then wtf are you doing playing a game about aliens that are smarter than us..? You gonna start saying that GOD created them too, even tho "GOD" apparently looks like an old human man with a golden walking stick and a long white beard..

I leave this thread now still not believing in god.. BYE BYE

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Modifié par PyroFreak301, 01 mars 2010 - 02:08 .

[Ryzaki]

addiction21 wrote...

Damnit do not drag agnosticism into this.

I wouldn't if dumbasses wouldn't keep getting atheism and agnostism confused.

[Roxlimn]

Ryzaki:



Such a definition of agnostic is common usage, but it is also based on an ignorance of Christian faith (don't know about other faiths). Christian faith does not posit that it is knowable at this time whether or not God exists. That is why it is called "faith" - it is "to believe without seeing." By the definition given, many Christians would be agnostics, because many of us believe that the existence of God is not something that is provable at the current time, nor is it all that cogent to faith whether or not it is.



A man who only believes what he can see and confirm is more properly called an "empiricist."

[Bryy_Miller]

massive_effect wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

massive_effect wrote...

PyroFreak301 wrote...

massive_effect wrote...
Also, it is common for atheists to compare unicorns, big foot, faires, etc...to faith in God. You are right that you could tell a child a lie about a vengeful unicorn, and he would likely believe it for a short time. He would be deceived, though. This is the challenge of faith. The only thing you can do is seek the truth. Effort is required.

I know it's going to be closed, but I'll say my part anyway.

Surely if this child was brought up in a closed society where everyone believed in the same unicorn, they would go their entire life believing it was just as real as you feel your God to be. Word of your 'true' God would sound just as alien to them as a Hindu God would to you. "It's common for non-believers to compare them to humans, deny His true unicorn shape etc".  I don't see how it's any different from real world christianity.

The questions you could ask yourself are: Why don't most people believe crazy things like Big Foot, or magic unicorns? Why do most people believe in God?

Because they're raised to believe its real from a young age. What else? 

No different than other countries believing in their gods/goddess. They were raised to do so or found the religion did something for them (brought comfort, among other things).

Quick history lesson:

1) God made Man.
2) Man sinned.
3) God could not remain with Man in a sinful state (just like a cheating spouse).
4) Man lost faith and made pagan religions, except for Jews.
5) Pagan parents taught kids pagan religion.
6) Jewish parents taught kids the truth.
7) Jesus was sent as promised to the Jews.
8) 2200 years later, Officer Bailey jokes about sending him a Christmas card.

My point is that there is a real history to what parents teach. It is not make-believe junk.

What part of other people believing their religion to be true do you not understand? It doesn't MATTER if you think Christianity is the only true religion, because other people believe the exact same thing about their religions. And that doesn't make them any less invalid or wrong. You originally stated that you did not want to turn this into a religious flamewar, but that is not possible if you yourself are unwilling to take other people's posts into consideration.

[ARK of ILKS]

Meaby the joke is on all of you because christmas already died out and nobode sends christmas letter anymore. Bailey was joking-joking... get it?

[Ryzaki]

Roxlimn wrote...

Ryzaki:

Such a definition of agnostic is common usage, but it is also based on an ignorance of Christian faith (don't know about other faiths). Christian faith does not posit that it is knowable at this time whether or not God exists. That is why it is called "faith" - it is "to believe without seeing." By the definition given, many Christians would be agnostics, because many of us believe that the existence of God is not something that is provable at the current time, nor is it all that cogent to faith whether or not it is.

A man who only believes what he can see and confirm is more properly called an "empiricist."

...I am SO not getting into this it'll just go into giant walls of text and neither of us will change the others mind. I've had far too many debates of this kind to even start getting into it again. <_<

[PyroFreak301]

Roxlimn wrote...

Ryzaki:

Such a definition of agnostic is common usage, but it is also based on an ignorance of Christian faith (don't know about other faiths). Christian faith does not posit that it is knowable at this time whether or not God exists. That is why it is called "faith" - it is "to believe without seeing." By the definition given, many Christians would be agnostics, because many of us believe that the existence of God is not something that is provable at the current time, nor is it all that cogent to faith whether or not it is.

A man who only believes what he can see and confirm is more properly called an "empiricist."

Doesn't theism encompass faith by definition?

Theism believes without seeing.
Agnosticism doesn't believe without seeing, nor does it deny.
Atheism doesn't believe because it doesn't see.

Faith only seems to apply to Theism using these very basic understanding of the terms.

[Roxlimn]

Ryzaki:



It's not a debate because there is no argument. Your definition encompasses some people that are Christians. It's literally a semantic issue because the entire issue is based on definitions of words. Read my post again. I don't think I'm saying what you think I'm saying.