The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by rtmistler Examples of dimensions by my interpretation could include: spatial XYZ, vector velocity XYZ, and acceleration XYZ, along with pressure, and time. There are also mathematical imaginary dimensions used for complex numbers which clearly are used with excellent success in explaining such things as phase shifted signals. It has been proven that given enough pressure and temperature that materials undergo transformation, and these properties are used as part of our technological inventions. Literally other elements, non-natively occurring ones have been created. Matter has literally been converted into energy. These concepts would appear as magic to those who lived a mere hundred or so years ago.

I fully agree that other dimensions exist. I fully agree that we can express some of them mathematically. That is not the same as "imagining" what they are "like". We only see the 3-dimensional "evidence" in the form of 3-dimensional matter and energy. That is not "comprehending" other dimensions, that is seeing evidence in OUR dimensions that they exist. It is not "spacially envisioning", for lack of any better term, since even our language cannot describe other dimensions.

Originally Posted by rtmistler Yes, there's nothing to discuss. You choose to accept your version and never accept that others have their viewpoints. I understand your viewpoint, I just don't agree with it.

Of course I accept that there are other viewpoints. What I don't accept is that "everyone can be right at the same time". That's the postmodern view that is sweeping the world into oblivion through a warped idea of tolerance. When it comes to objective Truth, there can be an infinite number of "wrong" views, but only one "right" one. I'm not saying who has what - I'm saying that only one view can be right.

"Be nice to your enemies, it will drive them NUTS!" ROTFL! Gods\hells\mythology-and-such are just war machines, that's it (so far!) If you grow old and wise enough you'd rather die than kill so they use 18 year olds! "Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting."
Sydney J. Harris

Iron ¯¯̿̿¯̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿̿)͇̿̿)̿̿̿̿ '̿̿̿̿̿̿\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪̀●́)=o/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ E.

Originally Posted by OregonJim When it comes to objective Truth, there can be an infinite number of "wrong" views, but only one "right" one. I'm not saying who has what - I'm saying that only one view can be right.

Fine. Then I'm right.

Originally Posted by rtmistler Fine. Then I'm right.

Obviously, everyone believes they are "right". That is the whole point of debate.

Assuming that you are not being totally sarcastic, I applaud you for at least recognizing the fact that right and wrong are objective, not subjective.

It boils down plane and simple: mythology or theory? Right or wrong does not depend on where or when we were born but how you were nourished!.

OregonJim
Your unshakeable confidence in Christianity and that all non-Christians need 'saving', to the extent that you refuse to accept the right of others to believe in other gods, or to have no belief in a god at all, is supremely arrogant. You appear to have zero tolerance towards opinions that differ from your own. You put your case very forcefully, but your arguments have an aura of brainwashing about them.
I'm extremely thankful that we're not neighbours

Originally Posted by Celtic Yokel OregonJim Your unshakeable confidence in Christianity and that all non-Christians need 'saving', to the extent that you refuse to accept the right of others to believe in other gods, or to have no belief in a god at all, is supremely arrogant. You appear to have zero tolerance towards opinions that differ from your own. You put your case very forcefully, but your arguments have an aura of brainwashing about them. I'm extremely thankful that we're not neighbours

You are making all kinds of subjective assumptions. When did I ever refuse to accept the rights of others to believe differently? Calling something "wrong" is not denying anyone the right to believe something that is "wrong". If you think I'm "wrong", you have the right to tell me so, or to debate one way or the other. There are many things that I've gotten wrong in the past, and many more to come in the future, I'm sure. Same with you or anyone else. But, there is no denying that there is objective Truth and, once found, you'll have to admit that it is illogical to abandon it - unless, of course, one can prove that it's NOT the Truth.

Tolerance means a respect for PERSONS, not IDEAS.

What exactly is "an aura of brainwashing"? I see lots of labels and accusations here, but no substance.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e It boils down plane and simple: mythology or theory? Right or wrong does not depend on where or when we were born but how you were nourished!.

One of my points somewhere along here; however more elegantly and briefly stated than I usually say things. I do concur.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Obviously, everyone believes they are "right". That is the whole point of debate. Assuming that you are not being totally sarcastic, I applaud you for at least recognizing the fact that right and wrong are objective, not subjective.

I feel that right and wrong are actually "subjective" since they fall within the purview of self-interpretation.

And I'm not really debating here, and clearly not for the sake of fun or making an argument, instead as someone noted a week or so ago, I'm stating what I really feel about this subject, versus those who either are trying to make points to convince others or some other agenda.

I feel () right and wrong are drugs, evolving from learned behaviors... but, that's backed up by more than feelings.

Originally Posted by rtmistler I feel that right and wrong are actually "subjective" since they fall within the purview of self-interpretation.

Can you describe what you mean by the terms "right and wrong"? We seem to be getting objective truth confused with subjective moral decisions.

Self-interpretation may lead you to believe one way or the other, but self-interpretation does nothing to change the truth. Truth exists outside of anyone's interpretation. It is only your perception of it that changes.

Originally Posted by rtmistler And I'm not really debating here, and clearly not for the sake of fun or making an argument, instead as someone noted a week or so ago, I'm stating what I really feel about this subject, versus those who either are trying to make points to convince others or some other agenda.

Fair enough.

Subjective is a line to walk, learn, scoff and debate; objective is life.

Originally Posted by enorbet I don't have any Gods, any Ultimate Arbiters. I trust in Logic and evidence because it works and is based on the most fundamental small and testable steps.

I guess you're not aware that the scientific method COMES FROM THE BIBLE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs

Following my last post OregonJim said

I see lots of labels and accusations here, but no substance.

and in reply to a later post by enorbet

I guess you're not aware that the scientific method COMES FROM THE BIBLE:

I feel that by using the Bible to back up all your arguments, OregonJim, that you are not actually providing any substance as proof. The Bible provides the tenets that form the basis of Christianity, but there is still no PROOF of the rightness of those tenets. Major historical events that are recorded in the Bible can be regarded as accurate since there is adequate proof of those events recorded in other ways ie other historical documents from that time, geology and archaeology, but to implicitly believe the existence of people, their lives and what they are supposed to have said and done as stated in the Bible, without corroboration from other sources is a form of mental blindness.
Still, to believe implicitly is your prerogative and you won't be criticised by me for it, as long as you afford me the right to believe whatever I want to, without being informed by you that I need saving......I DON'T NEED TO BE SAVED BECAUSE I DON'T SHARE YOUR BELIEFS!

It occurred to me to wonder what the division of religions, or not, was around the world, and I found these figures which had been compiled from the claimed religions of those asked: From http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/mysti...pulations.html
Christians: 2,100,000,000 adherents - tending to decline in terms of global percentage / Muslims: 1,500,000,000 persons - tending to increase in terms of global percentage / Of no religion: 1,100,000,000 Human Beings - tending to decline in terms of global percentage / Hindus: 900,000,000 adherents - stable in terms of global percentage / Chinese folk religionists: 400,000,000 persons / Primal religionists: 400,000,000 Human Beings / Buddhists: 375,000,000 adherents - stable in terms of global percentage / ikhs: 24,000,000 persons / Jews: 14,500,000 Human Beings / Baha'is: 7,400,000 adherents / Jains: 4,300,000 persons / Shintoists: 4,000,000 Human Beings / Taoism: 2,700,000 adherents
Christianity, as a whole, has the greatest number of adherents, but there are a tremendous number of people with alternative beliefs. It is thought that the increase in the number of Muslims is due to Muslim families usually having more children than others.

Originally Posted by Celtic Yokel I feel that by using the Bible to back up all your arguments, OregonJim, that you are not actually providing any substance as proof. The Bible provides the tenets that form the basis of Christianity, but there is still no PROOF of the rightness of those tenets. Major historical events that are recorded in the Bible can be regarded as accurate since there is adequate proof of those events recorded in other ways ie other historical documents from that time, geology and archaeology, but to implicitly believe the existence of people, their lives and what they are supposed to have said and done as stated in the Bible, without corroboration from other sources is a form of mental blindness. Still, to believe implicitly is your prerogative and you won't be criticised by me for it, as long as you afford me the right to believe whatever I want to, without being informed by you that I need saving......I DON'T NEED TO BE SAVED BECAUSE I DON'T SHARE YOUR BELIEFS!

I appreciate your point of view, but I see it as incomplete. In addition to the geological, archaeological, astronomical, historical, and other physical evidences, we also have the internal self-authentication mechanisms, such as hundreds of accurately predicted prophecies, and a unified message that crosses thousands of years of authorship from diverse cultures and continents (imagine collecting medical books from around the world in different cultures over a period of 1,600 years and finding no conflicts between them). There is more than enough compelling evidence to at least give it a serious, non-cursory investigation.

I also recognize your right to believe whatever you want to, but consider this: if you don't believe that cars can damage you when you walk across the street, you still need "saving" from those cars, whether you believe in them or not. Unless, of course, you don't value your own life.

Also, please remember that you jumped into the middle of this conversation - which is fine - but I was already here. So it's not quite fair to paint me as trying to "save you".

If you care to see some very recent evidence for the Biblical account from an astrophysicist, you might consider watching this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EaWPIlNYY

I provided this since you seem to think I don't present anything of substance. I'm curious to see if you find this compelling enough to trust the supernatural origin of the Bible, or if not, why not.

You may also want to back up through this thread for, say, the last 50 or so pages, since you appear to be a little "late to the party".

"2,100,000,000" As a kid I was supposedly one (well, two with my sister now still a "believer" but way lazy and a creator ) so how many hope their kids will stay blind but add to that "statistic?" It's bad enough with "politicians" and profiteers "cheating" and "stealing" so they too need an out\in, religion "just say yes!" Right and wrong don't exist in most religions, it can not, the books say so!!!

Kinda glad brains don't have WiFi and installers, religions would plague us all... like the little littering books at bus stops!