Printable View
i beleive we live in a petri dish or snowglobe type thing and are being used as a science experiment...being closely monitored by many "gods" of different universes.
When they are upset with our development they send gods to assist, such as those who helped us build pyramids, and develop mathmatics. Gods such as Tom Cruise for entertainment and Houston for statistical analysis of well, everything. :D
That sounds plausible. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I'm not really sure if I see the point of this thread. A Cardinal doesn't like atheists. NO WAY. He wants to define human in a spiritual rather than biologic sense. Who cares?
It's not that he wants to use different definitions to define humans, he is saying that atheists AREN'T fully human.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
Kind of insulting, no?
What's kind of scary is that this is the thoughts of some of our presidents as well, like Mr. George H.W. Bush:
Quote:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
- George Bush, to a AA reporter Robert I. Sherman in August 27,1987, while serving as vice-president and running for President
I don't really see what's scary about it in the Cardinal's case (GHWB is a different story). And yeah, it is insulting. It's about as insulting as any of the crap atheists say about religious type. Point being, who cares? I'm not really seeing how every adversarial comment made by one type of person about the other really has any impact on...anything. On the same token, I wouldn't really see it fit to make a thread every time an atheist said "Catholics are infantile sheep who aren't bright enough to understand science," or something of that nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by free2131
Either side, of any argument, saying the other side is 'less than human' is scary. that's what leads to mass murders, slavery, and denial of rights being OK (see the Holocaust, civil rights, women's rights, etc etc).
Once someone thinks the opposite view makes someone somehow less of a human being, then things get out of hand. That's what inspires muslim fundamentalists in terrorist attacks, or hatred of Jews by so many. some Americans feel the same way about the rest of the world - that they're somehow 'less human', or less important, less deserving of good things, etc.
The entire idea is sickening and grotesque in every way. It's not debating ideology, it's an attempt to make hating and maltreatment acceptable. Maybe it's not headline news, but this is definitely something to take note of if you have any stake in the matter. If you don't, that's fine - move on.
You can always count on AOW bringing the quailty postsQuote:
Originally Posted by Alloutwar
...and I do not think that is possible, because whatever that scientific explaination is...it couldn't have just come to be all by itself. Whatever was the very first thing, happening, force, incident, law, or whatever....I don't believe it could've appeared out of pure nothingness.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I do believe that a concept of a "god," whatever the hell that may be, could possibly have that capability.
And it comes back to beliefs...You don't believe that there could be a scientific explanation for it. I believe that there possibly could be.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
The fact of the matter is we just don't know. The beginning of the universe does not require a "god." Is it possible? Sure, but it's not a requirement.
There doesn't have to be a "first thing" or a "creator" in order for things to exist. That's a flawed way of viewing things. If you think that there must have been A as the cause of B, then you're thinking too linear and simplistically. There doesn't have to be a finite point or a cause. B can stand on its own.
Basically, there probably is no "before" and there doesn't "have to be." No reason to ask moot questions and get confused over them.
I do believe there is a scientific explanation for the entire universe as we know it. I think there has to be something that creates or sets in motion that "science." I don't think science can create/start itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
What Houston seems to be trying to say though, is what sets in motion the thing that sets science in motionQuote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
Well, everyone in the world thinks too simplistically when it comes to this issue, there is no possible way for us to know. There's no way to not have flawed thinking when it comes to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe12Pack
Also, I don't mean "god" as is some being that overlooks every facet of life today. I just think there had to have been some god or creator at the very beginning. I am not saying that science couldn't exist today without a god...I just think it had to have been started by something that we would refer to as a "god."
..and I believe that a "god" would be able to create itself, I don't think it would be bound by time. I think it would be capable of working in a way that is beyond any form possible of human comprehsion. With science, we can comprehend it as we learn about it/experience it. With a god, I don't think it's possible. Thus, I think a god would be able to start up on its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
I guess I just find it difficult to understand how people assume:
1) Something can't come from nothing
2) Something must have been created by a creator, who in turn created the universe
3) If we call this creator god, then there's no need to question where this creator came from and it's ok for him/her/it to come from nothing
4) Problem/Paradox solved
I understand the first platitude, but you guys start to lose me on the ensuing steps
**Not trying to encite you KK, just wondering why you find it more plausible for a being with creative powers to come from nothing but lesser building blocks wouldn't be capable of doing that