Bashing Atheists?

Remove all ads!

I had a babelfish catharsis. Thank you.

 

Any hypocracity must be forgiven, as many people do realize the contradictions their faith produces. I am a convinced agnostic. I say convinced because I have devoted many of my thoughts to the matter, but can find no reason to be a believer. That said I attended many a christian champs. I can say that I learnd a lot about the life of Abraham, Isak and Moses. I studied the bibel, got a lot of interesting christian knowlegde, and had plenty of fun at the same time. And, today, I'm an agnostic.

[ July 14, 2005, 06:50: Message edited by: Zurga ]

 

Again, you seem almost to see that point, but still paint all of us with the same brush. No matter how tempting people here make the idea of burning Aetheists at the stake sound, I know it is wrong. The Inquisitioners used Gods name to shed innocent blood. It was the people, not Religion itself. It's not as if it's "scientifically proven" that since one (insert Religious organization here) has committed attrocities and justified it by his faith, then all of any religious belief are bad...

I can save you the trouble there too. Yes, there is life on other worlds. In the Pearl of Great Price, God tells Moses that "Worlds without number have I created." IIUC, they are probably just like this one, meaning that the intelligent life forms that you see there will be Human, just like us (sorry to disappoint the Sci-Fi crowd), and the animals roughly the same as you see here on Earth (let's see you evolution people explain that one).

So would the Second coming of Christ be an acceptable proof of this? If so, then you are right. There will be ONE church, with Christ at the head, and all will be done as He says it must be.

It's not a card per se, but a part of their faith. John 14:6 tells us that "I am the way, the truth and the light. No man cometh unto the father but by me." Meaning that We must believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ if we wish to return to God's presence.

As a Member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Elder Eyring would be privy to how it actually happened, and could perhaps reconcile the teachings of Man with the teachings of God. I am not privy to this knowledge, and thus am skeptical of the teachings of man in such regards where they don't seem to fit with the things I have been taught thus far. Perhaps a link could be found to provide this information that you share would help both sides of this debate greatly.

At the last day, before the Judgement seat, will we not be brought face to face with Jesus Christ? If I understand correctly, if we can look Jesus Christ in the eye and yet deny that he is the Son of God, then we cannot be forgiven of our sins. If at the last day, our knee will bow and our tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, then we may be forgiven of our sins.

I've sometimes wondered about Judas Iscariot. While he did betray Jesus Christ, it was known from the beginning that he would do this, and that it was vital to the atonement of Jesus Chirst that he was betrayed. Further, the story I heard was that after he had done so, he was so overcome by remorse that he could not live with his sin, so he ended his life to attempt to relieve the pain he was in. That sounds to me like he was in a state conducive to repentance, and thus could be forgiven. Further, Judas did not deny that Jesus was the Christ, so was innocent of that sin.

That was explained better than I can. There are many places that I fall short in expalining things. I notice that when I talk from personal experience it is ignored. From what I have been taught, to even qualify for the least glory of Heaven, you must still acknowledge Jesus as the Saviour.

These ordinances still require that they be accepted. The sooner these ordinances are performed (meaning in this life) the better, but they can still be done on behalf of the dead. In the spirit world (where we go right after we die until the time of the ressurection), the Gospel is taught to those there and that as we perform these ordinances on their behalf, they are given the opportunity to accept or reject the work.

Actually, there are some things I have explained poorly, I don't claim to be perfect. There may be things that are worded wrong, and other things that I may not fully understand. Unfortunately, the stuff that is more in line with the teachings is the stuff that is ignored...

As T2Bruno introduced into this discussion (a point I figured would be mocked ruthlessly if I included here), in the next world they can receive the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, and thus become eligible for salvation if they choose to accept it.

Actually this questioning happens on a more personal level. Thus, when religious beliefs are attacked, it is very personal to the faithful--whether you mean it to be or not.

But that is not sufficient to prove them wrong.

The thing is that regardless of what is taught in our youth, they must come to their own conclusiona about life in general. For this reason, there are many young people that wander from the faith, some return, convinced that it is true, others don't. What I resent is that some of you here think that I am brainwashed and blindly follow what I have been taught. I was one of the ones that strayed. For 12 years, I pursued various sins only to find that I was not happy at all. A few years back, I was given cause to examine my life, and returned to the Church I had been a member of in my youth, more convinced than ever that it is true.

Actually, I think that having religion drilled into your head (rather than taught calmly and by example and testimony) may make that conclusion easier for some to reach. Have you ever seen children that normally are not allowed to have candy go completely nuts when their parents are busy with other things at a party and there's a table full of candy there? I think that it's the same thing with sin. If the home is strictly religious, then you get young men and women leaving these strict rules for the freedom of College, where things that they were previously forbidden, like sex, drugs and alcohol are readily available, and nobody is there to drag you to church on Sunday morning, the reasoning "because mommy and daddy say it's bad" won't stop them from experimenting. If on the other hand, as teenagers they are given freedom to choose what they do (again, within some limits, but not all that restrictive), maybe make a few mistakes, learn that these things aren't as good as the world says that they are, and learn to repent, they are more likely to remain faithful.

Faith is a leap, where you really can't see the other side, only having to trust what you are told. I myself have never seen God the Father, nor have I had the priveledge to meet Jesus Christ, but I have taken that leap and found that I have been rewarded with the conviction that it is true. If you do not make that leap, then you gain no such understanding.

 

Why would we need to? There is no proof what so ever of animals or humans living on other worlds as of yet. When we get this proof you can start demanding us to explain it.

Well I believe that there is something about those who have not been given the information of Christ will not go to hell (I don't believe my Church even uses the term "hell" though) but I don't think that there is actually anything about receiving information about Christ on the gates of heaven. On the other hand I don't study theology nor am I that interested in it so I would not be overly surprised if I were wrong. I'm pretty sure my Church follows the same lines as the Catholic Church does at this though.

This is just my Church I'm talking about. I would not know how the Mormons teach it since my knowledge of their theology equals pretty much zero.

That would depend to whom. As we have seen in the alley and as many of us has probably seen in the real world too there is very little (divine interference perhaps) which can prove false a belief someone has a strong conviction in. People believe what they want to believe and not that which would allways seem logical and correct.

EDIT: Oh and thanks to Hacken Slash for the answer to my question. I guess that's one less religious group damning me to hell if I decide to start practicing my religion again.

[ July 14, 2005, 16:02: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Darkthrone: By means of, yes. I do, however, find the claim that religion is the cause of all of society's ills (not that you've said this, but others most assuredly have) ridiculous. Well, rather, that Christian faith in the actual ideals of Christianity cannot possibly lead to the death of another human being, from what I have read of the Bible. Remember that anything you bring up from the Old Testament is irrelevant in reference to this, such as "an eye for an eye," because Jesus was said to revoke God's laws of the Old Testament and bring forth a new Gospel - stuff like "turn the other cheek."

Thanks for taking the moral high ground - non Christians love to smugly let us know when we're not being the perfect examples of our faith. We can't and aren't expected to be.

And sorry for not responding sooner, I always forget that I post on here and only return when reminded somehow.

 

Um... What? Because God told Moses, "Worlds without number I have created" this automatically means that there is life on all of these worlds, that there is intelligent life on all of these worlds, and that they are populated with people, flora and fauna exactly as our own?

I wouldn't interperet it that way at all. If I grant the premise that God created the Universe, then it logicly follows that all things within the Universe were also created either directly or indirectly by God. This would also include the "Worlds without number". However, based on that I don't automatically assume that there is life just like ours on all of these worlds. I think that would mean that he is responsible for the creation of all of the other planets in the Universe. To use our solar system as an example, not only did God create Earth, but also created Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto (and all of their associated satellites of course). AFAIK, we haven't determined there to be life on ANY of these other "worlds" and it is extremely doubtful that there are any humans anywhere in the solar system other than Earth.

I don't have a problem with you accepting that "Worlds without number I have created" is true, but then to think that it logically follows that all of these worlds have life, intelligent life, and Human life, is simply false. How do we know that the "worlds" being referred to aren't just all of the other planets?

 

Actually, I imagine there will be many similarities between alien and terran life.

They will probably be made of cells of some kind. They will have to breed much as we do (or in a different manner entirely...exchange of genetic information is the key), to realize the benefits of evolution such as intelligence.

Certain facets, such as the differences between bipedal and tetrapod creatures, are just inherent to the form and function morphology of living things. Now if they are something zany like intelligent oversized pufferfish, well...then it's time to write new books.

Edit...

Oh sorry, I forgot one thing.

The notion that their world will somehow be a miraculous duplicate image of our own is, of course, ridiculous. Someone has been reading too many fairy tales.

 

Well, speaking in generalities, yes I suppose there would be some similarities, although I don't necessarily agree with the ones you describe. There is no reason to think that they will have a similar cell structure for example.

However, if I were going to list things that any intelligent being would have to posess, I'd say they'd all have to have A.) some equivalent of a hand. Development is certainly going to be impaired if you can't pick things up and B.) some equivalent of an eye. Not one that necessarily detect light in the same visible spectrum as our own eyes, but there would need to be some way of getting detailed information of your surroundings, that only an eye provides.

That's about all I can say for fear of taking this way

 

Sure. That's why faith has nothing to do with science.

 

One God, One Creator, One set of plans. One Gospel to unite them all (wouldn't it be inconsistent if they each had their own gospel. The Testimonies will not be exactly the same, but the core would still be there). The Same general history of Creation (see Genesis Chapters 1 and 2).

[sarcasm]Oh yes, your post is so much more meaningful with that extra jab at what I have proposed in it.[/sarcasm]

It seems that I'm not the only one who's arguements are weapons of self distruction. Until that last part, it was interesting and seemed well thought out. That last bit that you've included with your edit simply detracts from the overall post.

But All I ask is that Science not be used as an attack on faith. Faith is an area that Science can tell you NOTHING about. Science with an agenda ceaces to be an impartial, objective attempt to understand what we have here and now. Once such an agenda is applies, it, along with faith, fall under the heading of Rhetoric...

 

Splunge: I think religion can be very harmful, but I was not making a blanket statement about it being nonsense. I just said I was not religious (that does not mean I am necessarily a materialist). Any philosophy parents hammer into the heads of their children before they are old enough to explore for themselves is dangerous. That is what I was trying to get at.

 

Observation: A Pearl of Great Price is a text constricted to the Mormons. Just thought I'd throw that in.

 

I recall when I was in school, it wasnt a particularly religious school but it enforced compulsory religious education and prayer and all that crap.

Ive always classed myself as athiest and I have some heated debates with religious people, I once got 'picked on' by a religous boy for being athiest and I said something along the lines of "so your religious then? so your bound to 'love thy fellow man', I on the other hand, as an athiest am not bound by this" at this point I broke his nose.
I was always getting into fights with the religous boys, I guess i wanted to show them the spirit of a non-believer.

go ahead and leap, all you will find is how rocky the cliffs below are

 

That would explain a lot - mostly like why I have never heard of it after being involved in the Catholic church extensively for the first 16 years or so of my life, and then later attending a Jesuit university. When Gnarff mentioned this, not only was I unaware of the content of the book, but I wasn't even familiar that such a text existed.

Gnarff, this is infuriating. I am not attacking your or anyone else's religion or faith. No one is doing that. I simply pointed out that one possible interpretation of the text is that God created all the planets, but that certainly not all the planets contain humans - God-worshipping or not. Why do you think it is a personal attack when I point out that the only thing we're sure of reagarding extra-terrestrial life is there are no other humans like us in our solar system. Like I said, I have never read the text of The Pearl of Great Price, but unless it specifically says "there are humans just like us on other planets", I don't see how you can jump to that conclusion on the basis that God created all the worlds of the universe. That doesn't say anything to me that there are humans or anything else living on any of them.

Agreed. But you seem to feel that your faith can (and apparently should) be used as a tool to discredit science. You say taht you see science as attacking religion, but others may look at your religion as attack against science. No doubt this is because the methodologies used by each group for what they believe to be true are entirely different.

The only agenda anyone in science should have is the pursuit of knowledge. Being a scientist myself, I have met many other people in my field. I can tell you for sure that no scientist I have ever met goes into a lab with the agenda of discrediting some religion. Or attacking some religion. Or trying to sway religious people from their faith.

Why do you feel that science is incompatible with faith? Here's a great example. The university I attended was a Jesuit university (the Jesuits are Catholic) and the main area of study in the university was - wait for it - science! Yes, a large percentage of students at the school went there for either pre-med or nursing degrees. As you might expect, both doctors and nurses take a whole lot of biology and chemistry courses. Do you really think that a Jesuit university would teach these things if they felt science was contrary to religion? Most of my points that I bring up against you I learned in college - basically these are points that the Jesuits - and by extension Catholics - thought was OK to teach.

Now, I know Catholic is not the same as Mormon, but I think we can at least agree that both are Christian, so we're under the same tent here.

[ July 15, 2005, 17:57: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

You still havn't grasped the concept of evolution have you Gnarf?

IF (and I stress the if) conditions on other worlds were to duplicate our world in any way then it is LIKELY that creatures would be similar. Why? Because evolution is quite simply the survival of the fittest. If the life-forms we see today are those that have survived, then given the similar conditions on a different world you would likely see similar lifeforms. (Or at least you would likely have mammals, reptiles, birds and insects and then predatorial and plant-eating varieties.)

One of the overwhelming resons that humans have got into the position they are today (top of the heap) is the help of the opposable thumb - being able to manipulate your environment is key to being able to learn about it. In my mind, it is therefore reasonable to assume that any inteligent life on other planets would have developed something similar.

 

@Carcaroth - now that I can't agree with. Even if you had exactly duplicate conditions on another planet, it is quite likely that you would NOT get similar animals. Evolution is pushed forward by random mutations and random events. To say that we would have mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, etc., would suggest that evolution would be working towards those life forms. But it just doesn't work that way. Evolution does not have some end "goal" so to speak. It's random, which is why most mutations are deletrious.

 

Actually, the current trend in evolutionary science is in support of theories that spring from punctuated equilibrium...big changes in (geologically) short periods of time. The gradual mutation referenced above is simply not supported by the fossil record (another case of "theory development" to lend support to the sacrosanct religion of evolution, but we won't go there).

If we consider that it's the big global or regional events that spawn evolutionary changes, then it would be quite possible for different planets to develop radically different life forms.

Hmmmm...I wonder if we can apply this idea to men and women...

 

I don't see where anyone above claimed that the evolution of species had to be "gradual". And you're wrong in saying that punc eq disproves "gradual mutation"; mutation happens all the time and you can play with it in the lab. All Eldredge and Gould were saying was that major evolutionary changes tend to be clustered together in the fossil record, and they thought the mechanism of punc eq had to do with higher selection pressure at peripheral populations (as large populations select toward statis), although environmental catastrophes have also been given as explanations. They also point out that punc eq doesn't apply to all species, and that transitional fossils have been found...

As to evolution on other planets: if so, there might just be some similarities if the environment were similar. Note convergent evolution, where you find a duplication in behavior or shape in different species and along different evolutionary lines...

 

I think it is highly likely they will have cells.

Remember the basic reason cells are small: The ratio of a spherical object's volume versus its surface area becomes larger as the object's size increases. This is very important when you have to osmotically ingest your nutrition as well as osmotically excrete your waste.

The metabolism of those cells could be quite different though.