Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2002 9:59 pm
LMAO 
from religion to hockey !!!
from religion to hockey !!! GameBanshee Forums
The Internet's authoritative role-playing game forum.
https://gamebanshee.com/forums/
Debate
Page 2 of 11
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2002 10:27 pm
Hey! For some of us, hockey IS a religion!
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Damnit, Eminem beat me to that one. Grrrrr
What I don't understand really, is the whole monetheistic and so called "pagan" religions that have many Gods. Wouldn't the world be a lot more interesting place if the God(s) had avatars and stuff!! Granted holy powers and magics and....
Can you tell I've been playing WAY to much BG??
I'm gonna crash.
Whoever, whatever, and however God exists however, ROCK ON!
What I don't understand really, is the whole monetheistic and so called "pagan" religions that have many Gods. Wouldn't the world be a lot more interesting place if the God(s) had avatars and stuff!! Granted holy powers and magics and....
Can you tell I've been playing WAY to much BG??
I'm gonna crash.
Whoever, whatever, and however God exists however, ROCK ON!
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2002 11:03 pm
How do you know animals don't? It's petty hard to build shrines/totems etc with no hands, say prayers with a voice box in the wrong position to have speech, and a lack of human knowledge on communications systems other animals use to tell how they communicate to one another.Originally posted by EMINEM
<SNIP>man possesses the desire to worship and revere something greater than himself. Animals do not. <SNIP>
They could use body language which we cannot interperet, that shoulder jitter could have a deeper meaning to that species.
Personally I follow Aegis' statement about humans needing the wellbeing feeling they get with the faith that someone cares about them.
As most know I don't believe in him/her/it. And if I did I stiil would not believe in following edicts basically becuase I'd feel that when rules are inplace we then only become glorified programs, not true living creatures whose meaning is to live, ie: free-will would have no meaning. (Like a character in BG rather than a sentient being).
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2002 11:15 pm
Canada over the Fins! 2-1! We playing Belarous! (Where da fox dat?)
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2002 11:49 pm
Two quick points, or observations -Originally posted by Mr Snow
How do you know animals don't? It's petty hard to build shrines/totems etc with no hands, say prayers with a voice box in the wrong position to have speech, and a lack of human knowledge on communications systems other animals use to tell how they communicate to one another.
They could use body language which we cannot interperet, that shoulder jitter could have a deeper meaning to that species.
Personally I follow Aegis' statement about humans needing the wellbeing feeling they get with the faith that someone cares about them.
As most know I don't believe in him/her/it. And if I did I stiil would not believe in following edicts basically becuase I'd feel that when rules are inplace we then only become glorified programs, not true living creatures whose meaning is to live, ie: free-will would have no meaning. (Like a character in BG rather than a sentient being).
Primates (gorillas, monkeys, orangutangs etc) possess hands, but I've never seen a monkey-made shrine.
If you don't believe in following edicts or obeying rules, you'll quickly land yourself in prison. Even by posting here at Gamebanshee, you must adhere to certain rules or risk being banned. These rules might take away from our freedom of speech, but that's the only way Fable and company can prevent these forums from deteriorating. Religion works in the same way. Moral laws, based on religious beliefs, rather than taking away from our freedoms, maximize our potential as human beings by directing us towards what is right and good, and away from behavior that is wrong and immoral.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 12:01 am
Two quick point/observations back:
1) Yes Primates possess hands, but they are only a minor amount compared to the animal kingdom. 4 species compares to hundereds, even if you only include mid-level intelligence. What about all tha animals that don't? Or are you discriminating against the others because they don't have hands? Especially since all human traits are expressed in the animal kindom, some even better than humans can do it.
2) My last point was an observation and it didn't have anything to do with the question of why should god be worshipped, really it was a comment on how it is implemented rather than why. the point was covered in my ageement with Aegis.
1) Yes Primates possess hands, but they are only a minor amount compared to the animal kingdom. 4 species compares to hundereds, even if you only include mid-level intelligence. What about all tha animals that don't? Or are you discriminating against the others because they don't have hands? Especially since all human traits are expressed in the animal kindom, some even better than humans can do it.
2) My last point was an observation and it didn't have anything to do with the question of why should god be worshipped, really it was a comment on how it is implemented rather than why. the point was covered in my ageement with Aegis.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 4:12 am
Enjoy this victory while you can. The memory of it shall console you when team USA sends you home in defeat. Belarus, hoever, should be a cakewalk. It's capital city, after all, is Minsc!Originally posted by Aegis
Canada over the Fins! 2-1! We playing Belarous! (Where da fox dat?)
Really, it is!
GO FOR THE EYES BOO! GO FOR THE EYES!
YAAAAAA!!!
"squeak"
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 4:50 am
The good old discussion
Ohh but hang on - I thought the bible was pretty clear that we had to worship god!?
Speak for your self. Worshipping something or even believing something for which there is no evidence is irrational. But then there is plenty of evidence that humans are, in certain respects, highly irrational, I'm sure you will agree?
This makes sense, for surly only the petty and those with psychological problems needs to be worshipped.Originally posted by EMINEM
God did not need to create man. God needs nothing from man, not even his worship. He loves us, but he does not need us.
Ohh but hang on - I thought the bible was pretty clear that we had to worship god!?
Originally posted by EMINEM
Man needs something to worship. This is probably the most significant difference between men and animals - man possesses the desire to worship and revere something greater than himself. Animals do not. The existence of temples, shrines, monuments etc. ancient and modern, monotheistic or polytheistic, in almost every country in the world, testifies to this yearning of the soul.
Speak for your self. Worshipping something or even believing something for which there is no evidence is irrational. But then there is plenty of evidence that humans are, in certain respects, highly irrational, I'm sure you will agree?
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:28 am
Re: The good old discussion
There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. Faith by definition is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see (Hebrews 11:1). It is not a blind leap into the unknown, but a careful consideration of the evidence and basing your decisions on that evidence. Do you really think I (and millions the world over) would give our lives to Jesus Christ if there was no proof he was who he claimed to be (God incarnate)?
Of course not.Originally posted by Tom
Speak for your self. Worshipping something or even believing something for which there is no evidence is irrational. But then there is plenty of evidence that humans are, in certain respects, highly irrational, I'm sure you will agree?
There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. Faith by definition is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see (Hebrews 11:1). It is not a blind leap into the unknown, but a careful consideration of the evidence and basing your decisions on that evidence. Do you really think I (and millions the world over) would give our lives to Jesus Christ if there was no proof he was who he claimed to be (God incarnate)?
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 7:31 am
Re: Re: The good old discussion
But lets start at the beginning. You say that millions like you wouldn’t believe Christianity if there was no proof. I’m sorry to inform you that I have the majority on my side. More people in this world believe that Christianity is wrong than believe it is correct. This despite all your evidence, people chose to believe in Hinduism, Islam Buddhism etc. Therefore they must be irrational - refusing to believe the truth despite the evidence. But lets not argue over how many believe this or that - lets look at the arguments.
You say you have proof? I would love to see your proof, in fact I would like to see just a hint of evidence.
(let me just apologise to those of you that don't like religious debates. We can slug it out here or go to a new thread?)
I think you do.Originally posted by EMINEM
Of course not.
To your last question yes.Originally posted by EMINEM
There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. Faith by definition is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see (Hebrews 11:1). It is not a blind leap into the unknown, but a careful consideration of the evidence and basing your decisions on that evidence. Do you really think I (and millions the world over) would give our lives to Jesus Christ if there was no proof he was who he claimed to be (God incarnate)?
But lets start at the beginning. You say that millions like you wouldn’t believe Christianity if there was no proof. I’m sorry to inform you that I have the majority on my side. More people in this world believe that Christianity is wrong than believe it is correct. This despite all your evidence, people chose to believe in Hinduism, Islam Buddhism etc. Therefore they must be irrational - refusing to believe the truth despite the evidence. But lets not argue over how many believe this or that - lets look at the arguments.
You say you have proof? I would love to see your proof, in fact I would like to see just a hint of evidence.
(let me just apologise to those of you that don't like religious debates. We can slug it out here or go to a new thread?)
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 7:41 am
Re: Re: Re: The good old discussion
Since when is the majority always right?Originally posted by Tom
To your last question yes.
But lets start at the beginning. You say that millions like you wouldn’t believe Christianity if there was no proof. I’m sorry to inform you that I have the majority on my side. More people in this world believe that Christianity is wrong than believe it is correct. This despite all your evidence, people chose to believe in Hinduism, Islam Buddhism etc. Therefore they must be irrational - refusing to believe the truth despite the evidence. But lets not argue over how many believe this or that - lets look at the arguments.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 7:54 am
Re: Re: Re: Re: The good old discussion
That's why I said: "But lets not argue over how many believe this or that - lets look at the arguments. "
I dont think anyone belives that.Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Since when is the majority always right?
That's why I said: "But lets not argue over how many believe this or that - lets look at the arguments. "
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 7:57 am
Re: The good old discussion
Hence me saying what i said, glad we all agree on that thenOriginally posted by Tom
I dont think anyone belives that.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 10:10 am
well...this is all going swimmingly.....I'd like to say a few things though:
Firstly, the 'People believe in God because they need someone to believe in and they need an anchor for their faith' argument is avoidance of the question.
People need to eat, but if there is no food, they do not believe that there is. They just starve.
the fact that so many people believe in God forces one to take the notion of his existance seriously, but I don't see why we should. To me the idea of God existing is as ridiculous as explaining life the universe and everything on tiny microscopic invisible pixies who live underground and have magic powers. This is a jokey example, but the fact is, if you were born alone, never alowed to talk to anyone and grew up never having been influenced by other people, I believe that you would not suddenly think: 'Ah yes! there must be a cosmic invisible force controlling the universe!', and if you did, then you might as well have thought 'Magic invisable pixies control the universe' There is no evidence for either which points directly to a God as we know him that cannot be used as evidence for some phonomenon other than god, which anyone alive now has ever experienced.
Firstly, the 'People believe in God because they need someone to believe in and they need an anchor for their faith' argument is avoidance of the question.
People need to eat, but if there is no food, they do not believe that there is. They just starve.
the fact that so many people believe in God forces one to take the notion of his existance seriously, but I don't see why we should. To me the idea of God existing is as ridiculous as explaining life the universe and everything on tiny microscopic invisible pixies who live underground and have magic powers. This is a jokey example, but the fact is, if you were born alone, never alowed to talk to anyone and grew up never having been influenced by other people, I believe that you would not suddenly think: 'Ah yes! there must be a cosmic invisible force controlling the universe!', and if you did, then you might as well have thought 'Magic invisable pixies control the universe' There is no evidence for either which points directly to a God as we know him that cannot be used as evidence for some phonomenon other than god, which anyone alive now has ever experienced.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 10:12 am
plus, could we please leave Hockey in another thread?
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 10:23 am
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that should be Buck and company. I am but a saint in the pantheon.Originally posted by EMINEM
These rules might take away from our freedom of speech, but that's the only way Fable and company can prevent these forums from deteriorating.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 2:17 pm
Right, let that be Buck and company. Its just that the particular saint I mentioned above has a greater presence among us mortals.Originally posted by fable
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that should be Buck and company. I am but a saint in the pantheon.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 2:38 pm
Re: Re: Re: The good old discussion
Oh, but we just have to argue over number of believers, since in this category alone atheism by comparison must hang its head in shame.
Let's go even further back, and include all religions that have God/a god figure as their centre of worship. Since you don't believe in any God whatsoever, you gotta clump the number of people devoted to Christianity together with those who believe in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and any other monotheistic/polytheistic religion that is out there. In which case, the number of believers in God surpasses three billion (Christianity - 1.5 billion, Judaism - 10 million, Islam - 1.2 billion, Hinduism - 900,000, other - 500,000). Since the number of people now living on earth is roughly 6 billion, according to the UN, the majority, therefore, is on my side, not yours. Atheism can only dream of attracting such numbers.
Originally posted by Tom
To your last question yes.
But lets start at the beginning. You say that millions like you wouldn’t believe Christianity if there was no proof. I’m sorry to inform you that I have the majority on my side. More people in this world believe that Christianity is wrong than believe it is correct. This despite all your evidence, people chose to believe in Hinduism, Islam Buddhism etc. Therefore they must be irrational - refusing to believe the truth despite the evidence. But lets not argue over how many believe this or that - lets look at the arguments.
You say you have proof? I would love to see your proof, in fact I would like to see just a hint of evidence.
(let me just apologise to those of you that don't like religious debates. We can slug it out here or go to a new thread?)
Oh, but we just have to argue over number of believers, since in this category alone atheism by comparison must hang its head in shame.
Let's go even further back, and include all religions that have God/a god figure as their centre of worship. Since you don't believe in any God whatsoever, you gotta clump the number of people devoted to Christianity together with those who believe in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and any other monotheistic/polytheistic religion that is out there. In which case, the number of believers in God surpasses three billion (Christianity - 1.5 billion, Judaism - 10 million, Islam - 1.2 billion, Hinduism - 900,000, other - 500,000). Since the number of people now living on earth is roughly 6 billion, according to the UN, the majority, therefore, is on my side, not yours. Atheism can only dream of attracting such numbers.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2002 2:54 pm
On the contrary, I think the idea of a loving and intelligent Designer/Creator (God) actually existing explains the incredible richness and complexity of life and the universe better than "invisible pixies living underground with magic powers."Originally posted by frogus
To me the idea of God existing is as ridiculous as explaining life the universe and everything on tiny microscopic invisible pixies who live underground and have magic powers. This is a jokey example, but the fact is, if you were born alone, never alowed to talk to anyone and grew up never having been influenced by other people, I believe that you would not suddenly think: 'Ah yes! there must be a cosmic invisible force controlling the universe!', and if you did, then you might as well have thought 'Magic invisable pixies control the universe' There is no evidence for either which points directly to a God as we know him that cannot be used as evidence for some phonomenon other than god, which anyone alive now has ever experienced.