Deep thinking Created 13 years ago2011-07-08 07:39:29 UTC by zeeba-G

Perhaps in our thinking nature we're not putting ourselves the correct questions. We always search for reason, because we make everything out of a reason.

But maybe the grand scheme of all things serves no purpose, no reason. Or it might, but in another context, not understandable to us.

You know that us Christians say that God exists from infinity, to infinity? It makes no sense to my logic, but... probably my logic is not good.

Scotch, the Universe is not infinite. Something else is infinite... but we don't knowobserved that 'something else'.

It makes no sense to my logic, but... probably my logic is not good.

A Christian in denial? Surely not!

I am not in denial. I wasn't talking about acceptance here.
Please, let's stay as subtle as we can on sensitive subjects like this.

Archie, the weird thing about religion that i've noticed is that it includes faith wich in my opinion is believing in something without proof.

It becomes normal on this earth to question these beliefs because humans need proof to believe something true. It just makes common sense. Its the sad truth. I am religeous in that I believe in God but thats really it right now. I'm seeking what all I actually believe with it. There's so many different beliefs out there that its like, which ones are correct?

Atleast that in my quest I have become a little less judgemental and can see where your coming from and not judge you. I'm sure its annoying to get judged for stuff you don't judge others for.

Scientists, "Can't see it? ITS NOT REAL" Fuck Off.

That's not true at all. Scientists theorize all the time.

Uh-oh, careful, if I've set off you guys on turning this into a religious thread, better keep it civil. Those threads never last too long.

@Striker: Perhaps I should have put the first paragraph in quotation marks. It was a quote, not my thoughts.

Faith is necessarily what fills in the gaps between history.

Moses leading the people out. Somehow they managed to cross the ocean.

Faith tells us that he did it by raising his hands and having God let them cross.

Please dont go there, this is a good thread lets not go toward religion.

Oh no, he didn't part the seas. They all swam across, but of course, for the sake of embellishment, we're not told of those that didn't quite make it.

This is not about religion, it's about forensics. Now we can get away with theories on how they did get to the other side. Probably walked around it.

That's not true at all. Scientists theorize all the time.

Well.. They theorize based on things they have observed.

Imagine if they made a theory about a phenomenon which has never been observed. That would be silly.

So in a way brednamint is right. Except seeing isn't the only way of observing something.

Well sometime's they have to make assumptions and than try to prove them right or wrong. For exaple, I was watching something on animal planet about a guy who claimed tyrannosaurus rex's hunted in packs because many of their skeletons were found close together. They didn't see them hunt in packs but had to assume this idea and than try to prove it correct. I guess you've somewhat implied that, its just common sense.

Assuming totaly random stuff with no context I guess is what your getting at is kind of silly... And that makes sense.

Observation:

many of their skeletons were found close together.

Theory:

tyrannosaurus rex's hunted in packs

Yet again a theory based on observation.
A theory doesn't have to be true. It's just a possible explanation which explains something that has been observed. In this case it explained a pattern.

scientists say god doesnt exist because "how can you belive something you cant see" but they believe the big bang, which is also silly because no one has ever witnessed a big bang, nor is there 100% proof.

what alot of people fail to realise is that evolution is also a theory.

atheists say the bible contradicts itself and they can "proove" this by quoting from the old testimate, because they have no idea how to read the bible, and they dont know that we're living in the new testimate which is completly different from old testimate.

therfore, atheists suck at interpreting the bible.

annnnd here goes another 'creation vs science' thread........

The Big Bang is a fairly well established theory due to the available evidence. Scientists don't "believe in" the big bang - it's just a logical explanation unless further evidence is observed.

And there lies the difference between men of science and men of religion.
Men of science aren't arrogant enough to think they know the answer. They love being proved wrong as much as they love being proved right, and they're perfectly happy with the answer: "I don't know yet."

Men of religion stop asking questions. They're so arrogant that they think they know the answers already based on their religion.

That said, there are definitely two distinct branches of religious people. Literalists and Believers. Literalists are idiots, full stop. They genuinely think that God created Adam and Eve ~4000 years ago. They genuinely think that modern man walked the Earth with the dinosaurs. They follow stories and teachings which were only relevant 2000 years ago when they were written, because we knew much, much less about the world around us and writing stories to explain it made sense.

Believers believe in God, but only select parts of the bible which suit them. They have a very convenient method of being in denial about their own religion's teachings, for example the Adam and Eve story mentioned earlier.
Which begs the question, why align themselves to a specific religion at all? Why not choose to believe in God without following all the obvious bullshit that the church & other religious establishments spout?

I have a mate who calls himself a Christian, but only believes that there is a God. He thinks the bible is just as much fiction as I do, yet he still chooses to call himself a Christian. He doesn't go to church, he doesn't pray and he doesn't follow the teachings. He just believes in God.

That's fine, though; why not believe in god? It's a reasonable explanation for the universe existing. Just don't be so arrogant as to think you know even remotely what sort of being that "God" is.

I just don't get why he chooses to be titled as part of an organised religion which he so clearly disagrees with.

scientists say god doesnt exist because "how can you belive something you cant see" but they believe the big bang, which is also silly because no one has ever witnessed a big bang, nor is there 100% proof.

This quote contains a lot of fail.

First of. There are religious scientists so "Scientists say god doesn't exist" is false.
What I really reacted on however was this. "but they BELIEVE in the big bang"
No they don't. It's a theory! Get the difference. You can't have belief in a theory. You can only say that there are evidence which supports it and if you don't quite like the idea then you try to dissprove it.

There aren't 100% proof of the big bang as you say, but neither is there 0% proof of it. There are lots of things that shows us that something similar to the big bang is probably what happened.

However, there is absolutley no evidence of creation. If you do have some I'd love it if you shared it. I'm open for debate. I've got christians in my family and I respect them anyway.

Also. What do you know about interpreting the bible? Did god himself tell you how to do it? Or was it a bunch of very human people? You choose to interpret the bible as you wish to your own favour. This is why atheists can't reason with you but yet I find myself trying over and over because I have hope that maybe you will find reason instead of believing in something blindly. For your own good.

so.. The Hunter says the big bang is 100% real.
Madcow says its not proven.

weird.

Believers believe in God, but only select parts of the bible which suit them.

as i said..... not everyone know the difference between the old and new testimate

Can you please tell me when I said the big bang is "100% real"?

Also curious that you completely avoided answering Madcow's question:

What do you know about interpreting the bible? Did god himself tell you how to do it?

"it's just a logical explanation "

ok maybe not 100% real. but you choose that theory over the others

also, im not supprised that typically allready people have shot my ideas down.

but you choose that theory over the others

Yes? I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

im not supprised that typically allready people have shot my ideas down.

They're not your ideas. They're your churches ideas.

ok maybe not 100% real. but you choose that theory over the others

Why wouldn't we? It's the one with the most evidence supporting it.
If I told you elephants were pink and archie told you elephants were grey you'd probably end up choosing archies theory because if you actually observe and elephant it's quite grey.. Or, well I guess that depends on which elephant it is.

We have responded to all of your claims. Now I'd like you to answer my question.

christian ideas.

in refference to:

"What do you know about interpreting the bible? Did god himself tell you how to do it?"

partly yes.

i think ive finished with this debate, because atheists are allways too willing to pick holes in christian ideas and beat my creation/science opinions down to a pulp.

but god loves you! (this is not sarcasm btw)

"Partly yes"? That's your answer? Well that's just fantastic.
Next time you speak with god tell him to give me a call. Maybe he will persuade me into becoming a christian

Oh and if your christian god loves me so much, then how come he will throw me in hell for not having faith?
Your god is a dick.

"how come he will throw me in hell for not having faith"

your a tool for not understanding anything christianity!

and yes, party yes, god taught ne. i would say "mostly yes" (as would most christians) but youd think im a bit weird.

if you get the idea im running away from this, because i have no evidence or arguement or whatever, PM me if you have any questions or insults, and i will answer them clearly.

atheists are allways too willing to pick holes in christian ideas and beat my creation/science opinions down to a pulp.

Haha, I love this.
Atheists People of reason pick holes in EVERY theory, religious or otherwise. If something doesn't make sense, you should find out why and find a solution. Madcow's elephant example works here.
If someone tells you that the grey elephant you're currently staring at is pink, should you simply say "Yes, you're right. I believe this elephant is pink." Or should you say "Hold on a moment, bloke. I happen to have these four encyclopaedias, independently written and cited by many different people of all walks of life. They say that elephants are grey, and using my own knowledge of colours, I would agree with those four observations."

PM me if you have any questions or insults, and i will answer them clearly.

Why? Why won't you answer questions clearly in the public domain of a forum?

your a tool for not understanding anything christianity!

Well a lot of your christian friends would most certainly say that I'd go to hell for that. And your god is still a dick for a long list of reasons.
His moral standards are just horrible.

but youd think im a bit weird.

Yes. Yes I would.

i have no evidence or arguement or whatever

like most ALL christians

so.. The Hunter says the big bang is 100% real.

Wait, when did he say that?

All of you, you're wrecking this thread. Stop it.

Appreciate that someone else noticed, but I already called him out on it, Crollo.

He also clearly didn't understand the rest of my post after the part he quoted, seeing as I specifically say that men of science admit they absolutely don't know 100%.

Appreciate that someone else noticed, but I already called him out on it, Crollo.

Most of the time I like to just post as I see without bothering to read the rest of the thread, my bad.

Edit blocked:

Gotta say I disagree with this topic wrecking the thread. Finding meaning in the universe is absolutely deep thinking, and I genuinely find it intriguing to hear the attempted reasoning behind those who found meaning in religion.

attempted reasoning is right.

Fuck everyone who who resorted to attacking. Way to go all gung ho. Again.

It's been the same users doing this for years now. Grow the fuck up already and address such topics like a civilized human fucking being or stay out. Or even better yet, try steering the discussion in another direction.

The thing is when it's resorting to continuous retorts and attacks upon both sides, it's not civilized and it's immature. It's nice to have the discussion, sure, but the discussion that's taking place right now isn't all that mature, judging from the comments being dropped.

Edit: Fuck it.

Yikes, it was meant as a bit of light-hearted banter. Striker and myself have had long discussions about the topic, and I knew he could take a wee sarcastic jab like that.
Calm down Soupy

CHANGING GEARS Do you guys think its possible to read someones mind?

God dammit guys. This is why we can't have deep, insightful theological debates. They always degenerate into flameing. Just once I'd like to be able to do this sort of thing with you guys without people on all sides of the argument pulling out bloody flamethrowers.

Oh well, human nature, I guess.

i like how The Hunter has to justify himself afterwards.
you/i both know exactly what you were getting at in this argument.

im out!

Not sure about mind reading, but it may be possible.

Like much psychics, people might have the same kind of power which can give the ability to see how they breath and are reacting to read their feelings and mind.

NineThine, you're just as guilty.

Do you guys think its possible to read someones mind?

Absolutely. But only if we are able to understand how thoughts work at the chemical level.

i know i am, but im not trying to say "this was just a little joke, a nice bit of fun discussion"

because it wasnt

im not going to try and justify myself.

Absolutely. But only if we are able to understand how thoughts work at the chemical level.

Sure, but only with dubious amounts of EM radiation and some extremely sensitive detectors. It'll never be portable I don't think.

i like how The Hunter has to justify himself afterwards.

I was responding to a specific point Soup Miner made in his post which he latterly edited regarding my response to CStriker.
I stand by everything I said to you, NineTnine, because I don't think those posts need justification.

Actual mind reading I'm sceptical about, but there are recorded cases of people, specifically twins, who have a certain sense of what someone else is thinking. They could be in separate sealed rooms and react to their twin's emotion, for example. It makes some really interesting reading.
I think a lot of the time subconsciously reading people's subtle facial expressions can often lead people to the same conclusions before anything is said aloud. Is this a form of mind reading?

Sure, but only with dubious amounts of EM radiation and some extremely sensitive detectors. It'll never be portable I don't think.

Possible, not practical

I'm not holding my breathe for that kind of technology in my lifetime, or my kids' lifetime.

Understanding the workings of the human brain on such a level is also dangerous to people's notions of free will. If science could explain exactly how the human brain works that precisely... I'm inclined to believe that would be devastating.

I think a lot of the time subconsciously reading people's subtle facial expressions can often lead people to the same conclusions before anything is said aloud. Is this a form of mind reading?

Depends on your definition of "mind reading", I suppose.

I don't think that there's [currently] actual mind reading (ie, reading of thoughts) per se, but as has been posted above, twins do have some kind of connection, even ending up with the same, occupation, vehicle, spouses of the same name, etc, if they were separated at birth. It's been documented. There are also very talented individuals who can read people by paying close attention to their actions and emotions, but that's more body reading and inferring the meaning from experience than mind reading.

Edit blocked again. Curses.
To finish that:

I think a lot of the time subconsciously reading people's subtle facial expressions can often lead people to the same conclusions before anything is said aloud. Is this a form of mind reading?

Depends on your definition of "mind reading", I suppose.
I would say not, if only because it's a medium between the mind and the reader - body language and whatnot - that is really being read, not the mind itself.

Hell, we already realize that all of our thoughts are happening through a blob of firing neurons. I don't see why understanding it would make anyone feel different.

If anything, we could get some bad-ass ghost in the shell cyborg implants and bodies so we could talk wirelessly without physically speaking, personally see through cameras across the planet, use robotic limbs as our own, or live forever (as long as machines can keep a brain alive without a supporting organic body) <3

In that sense we could also have virtual reality that literally takes over our senses. That would make video-games and hands-on training awesome. You could learn to paint without actually using paint. Sports might even be fun if the game strategy and control is decoupled from physical prowess. We could be having this conversation "face to face".

Or.. give us all a hint of autism. The kind that allows savants the ability to do math on huge fucked up numbers in their heads or remember everything they've ever read.

At the very least we could tune chemical imbalances.. It's not really changing their sense of "free will" as it is regulating their mood. They can do what they want, but they wont go on explosive or psychopathic killing sprees.

You know we only use 10% to 15% of our brain, I wonder what it would be like with the other 90% percent left untapped...

You know we only use 10% to 15% of our brain

That's a myth.

wait, I thought this topic was about quantum physics?