Alive! magazine and a no junk mail sign.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

I just think there's a huge conflict in saying god is caring but if he decides this or that he won't care about your opinion on the matter. I don't like the thought of something thinking their better than me (even if they are) it's arrogant.

I just think, that even if I could give you the loftiest and most intellectual of all arguments (if I could being the emphasis, I don't think I argue all that well at the best of times) it wouldn't budge a thing.

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm open to the idea of a creator but not the one in the bible and not an ongoing active administrator. The universe is so well balanced that any outside interference could make a mess of everything.

Do you not wonder why the universe is so well balanced to begin with? It's a huge problem I have with atheism, is that the assumption is that this happens for no reason whatsoever, and that the universe is devoid of purpose.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

I fear for your sense of humour if that makes you lol tbh. This is where it gets really interesting, people with no belief in an omnipotent being racking their brains trying to come up with arguments against it.

Oooohhh, nija edits make me lol, too.

I'm hardly racking my brains to find arguments against something for which you can show me no evidence and the world is suspiciously akin to how it would be if no god existed now, am I? I came up with most of my opinions on theism as a pre-schooler.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm hardly racking my brains to find arguments against something for which you can show me no evidence and the world is suspiciously akin to how it would be if no god existed now, am I? I came up with most of my opinions on theism as a pre-schooler.

Dare I say, they may well be up for an audit

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Dare I say, they may well be up for an audit

Oh they regularly get audited, yet to find anything approaching a semblance of a convincing argument to change my original thoughts on the matter tho...

supermonkey

It is odd isn't it?

God creates the Universe and everything in it.
He likes his creation.
He is lonely and feels a bit unappreciated.

YHVH wrote:

I mean those trees are awesome but they just go on growing and don't know i made them

YHVH wrote:

Hi Elephant you like me but you don't know just how cool I am

YHVH wrote:

Hi puppy you like me but you like everything. I am the creator of heaven and earth

YHVH wrote:

I know. I will make someone to worship me. I will make my own friends

YHVH wrote:

Now Adam and er Eve is it. You can have anything in the garden but of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye may not eat.

Adam wrote:

Grand

Eve wrote:

OK

OH NO

YHVH wrote:

I TOLD YOU NOT TO EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL

Eve wrote:

Yeah well we hadn't eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and so we didn't know that it was wrong to lie.

YHVH wrote:

I am not listening get out of my sight for a few thousand years!

Adam wrote:

Can we ever come back God?

YHVH wrote:

Yeah look I was a bit hasty there so I am going to come back in a bit, knock up a fourteen year old, get her to give birth to become a joiner and get myself crucified to make up for you eating that fruit.

Eve wrote:

Why don't you just make a really nice endtable

YHVH wrote:

Oh I will.

Wolfe Tone

Sorry to interrupt, but what are the historical pieces of evidence for Jesus Christ's existence besides the gospels? I assume there are many pieces from the Romans etc, considering even older material(like Cicero's letters) is still extant? Not making an argument against His existence mind, just curious.

supermonkey

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt, but what are the historical pieces of evidence for Jesus Christ's existence besides the gospels? .

There's loads of archaeological evidence. Between 8AD and 28 AD there is loads of amazing Israeli furniture so amazing that I can't even emulate it today. All the joints line up. Nothing glued in place. It is amazing stuff.

Wolfe Tone

supermonkey wrote: »

There's loads of archaeological evidence. Between 8AD and 28 AD there is loads of amazing Israeli furniture so amazing that I can't even emulate it today. All the joints line up. Nothing glued in place. It is amazing stuff.

Thats a helpful answer. Thanks.

ScumLord

Jakkass wrote: »

I just think, that even if I could give you the loftiest and most intellectual of all arguments (if I could being the emphasis, I don't think I argue all that well at the best of times) it wouldn't budge a thing.

No, it's a pretty big impasse with me, I just can't get around the fact that the Christian god if he was a person sounds like someone I just wouldn't like to be around.

Do you not wonder why the universe is so well balanced to begin with? It's a huge problem I have with atheism, is that the assumption is that this happens for no reason whatsoever, and that the universe is devoid of purpose.

Well that's why I'm open to the possibility of something creating the universe we live in, but the universe had it's perfect balance from the beginning and just played itself out to this point. From the beginning it was inevitable we would end up with a universe that looked something like this (planet and life wise) we don't know yet weather it's inevitable that you'd get intelligent animals like ourselves or whether we're some kind of special anomaly.

supermonkey

ScumLord wrote: »

No, it's a pretty big impasse with me, I just can't get around the fact that the Christian god if he was a person sounds like someone I just wouldn't like to be around.

Look at his creation.

I think lions are beautiful but it is a bit tough on the Gazelles.

Perhaps the reason that Adam and Eve were not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and of evil was because they would have realised that God was evil.

Dyr

supermonkey wrote: »

Look at his creation.

I think lions are beautiful but it is a bit tough on the Gazelles.

Perhaps the reason that Adam and Eve were not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and of evil was because they would have realised that God was evil.

Could god not have just made a gotchee to guard the tree?

supermonkey

Bambi wrote: »

Could god not have just made a gotchee to guard the tree?

He could have just put it outside the garden or even not created it.
Or not worried about it.
Or redeemed humanity in some more straightforward way.

Given that the Godhead as trinity has always existed (even before Christ's time on earth) I'm thinking that there was some slamming of doors in the YHVH mansion when God told Jesus how he was planning to redeem humanity.

If aliens sin does Jesus have to go and get killed on their planet?

It would be pretty cool if we met an alien species who believed that they were redeemed from sin by the death and resurrection of Snorquax. Who asked them to eat algae in memory of him.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you not wonder why the universe is so well balanced to begin with? .

How is it well balanced

Ickle Magoo

bluewolf wrote: »

How is it well balanced

I never get that argument either. I'd say heading for almost certain solar annihilation while dodging comets, meteors and solar flares is anything but a universe acting with purpose for the sake of a few billion primates on one tiny sphere.

ScumLord

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I never get that argument either. I'd say heading for almost certain solar annihilation while dodging comets, meteors and solar flares is anything but a universe acting with purpose for the sake of a few billion primates on one tiny sphere.

It's science that will go on and on about how if one tiny detail like the force of gravity was slightly different the universe just wouldn't work. It's where the multi universe theory comes in to explain why this universe would be so perfect. It's just one of many universes that are all slightly different and most of the other ones wouldn't work at all.

Ickle Magoo

ScumLord wrote: »

It's science that will go on and on about how if one tiny detail like the force of gravity was slightly different the universe just wouldn't work. It's where the multi universe theory comes in to explain why this universe would be so perfect. It's just one of many universes that are all slightly different and most of the other ones wouldn't work at all.

No, if one detail was slightly different the universe would be different, I don't know what "just wouldn't work" means?

ScumLord

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, if one detail was slightly different the universe would be different, I don't know what "just wouldn't work" means?

If gravity was different it would cause all kind of problems that could prevent planets and stars from forming which would mean the universe would just be a clump of elements. You could say that's just different but the end result would mean no planets, and no life. From our point of view that's a broken universe.

coffee_cake

One tiny detail breaking everything isn't really what I would call well balanced

Parsley

ScumLord wrote: »

If gravity was different it would cause all kind of problems that could prevent planets and stars from forming which would mean the universe would just be a clump of elements. You could say that's just different but the end result would mean no planets, and no life. From our point of view that's a broken universe.

things beyond the scope of our imaginations would arise, in all likelihood. you can't just say it wouldn't work or would be broken.

vibe666

so, that alive! magazine eh?

sounds like some kind of pamphlet about the zombie apocalypse to me.

i seem to remember seeing it come through the letterbox a few times, but it goes with the rest of the junk mail and gets used to light the fire.

if it really bothered me that much and i'd specifically asked for crap not to be put through my door, i'd wait for them to come and try and deliver the next one and as imaginatively as I could, scare the bejesus out of them when they tried.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, that isn't a problem. Just because human behaviour and human thought changes over time, does not discredit the view that there is a universal standard of morality by which we will all be judged by.
.

So just because your supposed "universal standard" doesn't exist, theres a universal standard which exists. I like it.

I don't suppose the idea of social control by means of religous taboo, or the fact that nearly all societies pass through a stage where political and social control is exercised by religon and its trappings have any bearings either.

Ickle Magoo

ScumLord wrote: »

If gravity was different it would cause all kind of problems that could prevent planets and stars from forming which would mean the universe would just be a clump of elements. You could say that's just different but the end result would mean no planets, and no life. From our point of view that's a broken universe.

We have no idea what would happen if the laws that govern our universe from the singularity to now did not happen the way they did. We can postulate about hypothetical metaverses all we like but there is no way of making any kind of claims beyond "different". People may not have inhabited such a universe, there may be floating gelatinous blobs of intelligence, forces that we don't understand creating or making things we don't know about instead.

sensibleken

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt, but what are the historical pieces of evidence for Jesus Christ's existence besides the gospels? I assume there are many pieces from the Romans etc, considering even older material(like Cicero's letters) is still extant? Not making an argument against His existence mind, just curious.

Pliny, tacitus refer to jesus, or at least christ. but their writings seems to be based more on knowledge of jesus.

the biggest one that christians point to is Josephus who said

"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"

however, not only have concerns been raised against its authicity but this is also written after christs death and cant be taken as a proper biography as it is refering also to christians.

I am not aware of any records of the census which joseph went to bethlehem to partake in and im also not aware of any roman records of jesus' crucifiction.

so no, i don't think there is any concrete evidence

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

So just because your supposed "universal standard" doesn't exist, theres a universal standard which exists. I like it.

I didn't argue this. Humans can choose to not conform, indeed try to suppress or ignore this universal standard of morality if they so choose, but on a pragmatic level, when we all argue with each other as to who was in the wrong against whom, or who did the wrong thing, we are all dwelling on a common source of morality irrespective of how much or how little people want that to be the case.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't argue this. Humans can choose to not conform, indeed try to suppress or ignore this universal standard of morality if they so choose, but on a pragmatic level, when we all argue with each other as to who was in the wrong against whom, or who did the wrong thing, we are all dwelling on a common source of morality irrespective of how much or how little people want that to be the case.

Eh, we're dwelling on our own sources. That's why there's arguments

ScumLord

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

We have no idea what would happen if the laws that govern our universe from the singularity to now did not happen the way they did. We can postulate about hypothetical metaverses all we like but there is no way of making any kind of claims beyond "different". People may not have inhabited such a universe, there may be floating gelatinous blobs of intelligence, forces that we don't understand creating or making things we don't know about instead.

Well we do have some idea because there's computer models that can simulate these things, it's all part of the research their doing to understand how our own universe works.


Most people seem to think multi universes just means that in some universe the Nazis won WW2 but that would be essentially the same universe where people made different choices. A different universe would be fundamentally different it may not even get past the big bang.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Eh, we're dwelling on our own sources. That's why there's arguments

I would argue it is down to fallible human behaviour that there are arguments over behaviour, and doing the right thing. We can become self-interested, and that can detract from genuine moral behaviour. It happens to the best and the worst of us, that is why from my take on it that these arguments take place.

If morality were relative, there wouldn't be any point in having the argument. There would be no way to relate on the same terms if people had an entirely different definition of good and evil than you had.

When people are wronged, they don't argue that they were wronged subjectively, but that they were wronged objectively.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

I would argue it is down to fallible human behaviour that there are arguments over behaviour, and doing the right thing. We can become self-interested, and that can detract from genuine moral behaviour. It happens to the best and the worst of us, that is why from my take on it that these arguments take place.

If morality were relative, there wouldn't be any point in having the argument. There would be no way to relate on the same terms if people had an entirely different definition of good and evil than you had.

I'm sure it's nice to think that people who don't share our own views must be deluded, but they're not. Some things we can agree on as universal and some things we can't.

When people are wronged, they don't argue that they were wronged subjectively, but that they were wronged objectively.

Of course they do, then the rest of us tell them to cop on and see sense. Then sometimes they do. like "how dare they not give me a plastic bag they have terrible service!"

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

.................., we are all dwelling on a common source of morality irrespective of how much or how little people want that to be the case.

What? Theres countries where divorce is frowned on but beating the shit out of your wife is not. Theres countries where widows are the lowest of the low. There are countries where not all are deemed equal and some are deemed actively harmful. Wheres your "common source of morality" there?

sensibleken

ScumLord wrote: »

If gravity was different it would cause all kind of problems that could prevent planets and stars from forming which would mean the universe would just be a clump of elements. You could say that's just different but the end result would mean no planets, and no life. From our point of view that's a broken universe.

i dont understand this arguement. If electromagnetism was different we could have ended up with square planets.

If gravity suddenly changed and Fg = (m1*m2)/d^2 no longer was true, then yes that would cause problems.
But not if it was different from the start, things would be different and life may not have developed but life may have developed differntly if it was d^3 or something. its really an arguement which i dont see going anywhere