Religion – your views

[spiraldoor]

No linking images without permission!

[Hunchman801]

God must exist... because the crocoduck doesn't!
That one is just great ^^

[Tobbe]

There it is! It's fantastic!

[Tobbe]

This is incredibly cool!

[stan423321]

Off-Topic, but... indeed, it is!

[spiraldoor]

Priests are a bunch of child-molesters.

[stan423321]

Spiraldoor is a gossip writer, then.

The only difference between ethics professor and priest is actually salary of professor got from citizen's tax and so following the government, while priest must use DONATIONS instead.

[Tobbe]

Really? In Poland? Even here in Norway, where about 70-80% of the tax payers are atheist or agnostic, the church takes our tax money.
And there is another difference between the two: The priest takes his ethics from religious dogma, written by people whose ethics, by today's standards, were dodgy at best. The professor doesn't.

[stan423321]

I'm not sure does Catholic Church get money from our government, but I know even if so, they don't come to "local" priests. And Norwegian Church is national, not like our one...

And there is another difference between the two: The priest takes his ethics from religious dogma, written by people whose ethics, by today's standards, were dodgy at best. The professor doesn't.

By today's standard, I'm not even a human, as I don't like disco polo.

Not seriously, but most of "people" there think this way.

[Xenon]

That's news to me... I always assumed the church only receives maintenance shares. I thought the collection income from the church's congregation paid off any outstanding costs.

Or maybe it's different here? I dunno, but if this is the case then something is very, very wrong here.

[spiraldoor]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may20 ... -m26.shtml

[stan423321]

i don't say there are no bad priests. I say there are lots of good ones.

[spiraldoor]

I wonder what the exact percentage is.

~It certainly seems that priests are more likely to molest children than non-priests.

[Holy Crap]

Possibly because they fail more at proper relationships.

[stan423321]

That's because some time ago, if you'd like to be priest (and thus escape something), there was no problem about that. Now, there are some psychological exams (my "uncle" even got out of seminary, because psychologist said he should marry).

That's news to me... I always assumed the church only receives maintenance shares. I thought the collection income from the church's congregation paid off any outstanding costs.

Or maybe it's different here? I dunno, but if this is the case then something is very, very wrong here.

I'm sure that British and Norwegian churches are tax-refunded, as they are NATIONAL. Catholic Church isn't owned by Poland, Italy or whatever (though I heard that a lot of Poles going to Austria register as atheists, because else they are FORCED to pay church tax).

[Mister Dark]

Does God exist eh? I would like to propose my views:

As i see it, there are three ways the Universe came about...

1. Something came from nothing.
2. The Universe was around forever.
3. A First Cause.

1 is impossible as it goes against science. "Something" from nothing? ridiculous.
2 is also impossible. If the Universe were always here, then Time must logically go back eternally into the past. If this is the case, however, then, as each moment must logically have a preceding moment, we could never reach the present- that is, NOW.

3: a First Cause?
Atheists (no offence to anyone ) often say that the First Cause must also have a cause- however, this is basically like saying number 2 is possible: the whole point of the FIRST Cause is that it is the First. If the First Cause is something of Infinite power, then the First Cause can override the laws of time and dimension as we understand them. In other words, a Cause that brought Time and dimension into existence, capable of existing outside of, or without them.

So, when it's all simplified, a First Cause is the only logical solution to the riddle of our existence and that of the Universe.
However, that leaves the question as to the nature of the First Cause... is the First Cause God? I would say the First Cause is.
My reasoning for this is simplistic: if one looks at the human body, with all the cells and organisms supporting each other for the benefit of the body as a whole, including vital organs, as well as emotion and the very nature of being alive- this is far too complex an organism to have simply "evolved" from a single celluar organism over millions of years. That's the whole point of a single celluar organism, after all- the appearance of a bodily organ in such an organism, for instance, would be useless or plain damaging and so in the scheme of so-called evolution be left out. No- evolution isn't the answer here: it is no more the cause of humanity than of any other form of life. The complexity of such an organism calls for a Maker with a Mind intelligent enough to plan it out and knit it together, as it were. Other evidences of design come from the fact that the conditions of our planet in terms of temperature, food, land and resources are perfectly suited for human life. If all these things are merely the product of random coincidence, the chances of such a coincidence are so infintesmal as to be ridiculous.

In other words, when we look at FACT, what we are left with is a First Cause that *planned* out the scheme of creation, from the smallest microscopic particle to the most colossal phenomenon of Space- a First Cause that imbued his creations with life, rationality, and intelligent minds that take after His own. Well then- isn't this the very definition of God? This thread is about whether God exists. I think it's logical, inevitable and just plain evident he does.

[Holy Crap]

That is probably the most reasonable and thought out arguement for god exisiting that I have seen, however I still disagree.

I'm too tired and lazy to explain why though... Tobbe will probably do that when he gets around to it anyway...

[spiraldoor]

Why can't the First Cause be the Big Bang?

[Xenon]

It is indeed the most plausible argument, but there are still flaws in it. The 'First Cause', you say, created everything, yet any matter is impossible without a cause. So what do you suggest created this 'First Cause' or God? You can't be suggesting this just materialised out of nothingness because as you said, it's ridiculous to believe nothing could produce something... so you've essentially subverted your own point.

[Tobbe]

Oh, the stupid! Oh, the logical fallacies!

Does God exist eh? I would like to propose my views:

As i see it, there are three ways the Universe came about...

1. Something came from nothing.
2. The Universe was around forever.
3. A First Cause.

1 is impossible as it goes against science. "Something" from nothing? ridiculous.
2 is also impossible. If the Universe were always here, then Time must logically go back eternally into the past. If this is the case, however, then, as each moment must logically have a preceding moment, we could never reach the present- that is, NOW.

3: a First Cause?
Atheists (no offence to anyone ) often say that the First Cause must also have a cause- however, this is basically like saying number 2 is possible: the whole point of the FIRST Cause is that it is the First. If the First Cause is something of Infinite power, then the First Cause can override the laws of time and dimension as we understand them. In other words, a Cause that brought Time and dimension into existence, capable of existing outside of, or without them.

So, when it's all simplified, a First Cause is the only logical solution to the riddle of our existence and that of the Universe.
However, that leaves the question as to the nature of the First Cause... is the First Cause God? I would say the First Cause is.
My reasoning for this is simplistic: if one looks at the human body, with all the cells and organisms supporting each other for the benefit of the body as a whole, including vital organs, as well as emotion and the very nature of being alive- this is far too complex an organism to have simply "evolved" from a single celluar organism over millions of years. That's the whole point of a single celluar organism, after all- the appearance of a bodily organ in such an organism, for instance, would be useless or plain damaging and so in the scheme of so-called evolution be left out. No- evolution isn't the answer here: it is no more the cause of humanity than of any other form of life. The complexity of such an organism calls for a Maker with a Mind intelligent enough to plan it out and knit it together, as it were. Other evidences of design come from the fact that the conditions of our planet in terms of temperature, food, land and resources are perfectly suited for human life. If all these things are merely the product of random coincidence, the chances of such a coincidence are so infintesmal as to be ridiculous.

In other words, when we look at FACT, what we are left with is a First Cause that *planned* out the scheme of creation, from the smallest microscopic particle to the most colossal phenomenon of Space- a First Cause that imbued his creations with life, rationality, and intelligent minds that take after His own. Well then- isn't this the very definition of God? This thread is about whether God exists. I think it's logical, inevitable and just plain evident he does.

You make some good points (I still disagree with you, though, and I'll explain why later), until you reach the paragraph I've marked in bold, where you start spewing out bullshit "Kent Hovind-style". Firstly, you seem to dismiss evolution because you don't understand it, which is of course ridicolous. You simply sit in your armchair and declare that the human body is too complex to have evolved from the first replicating molecules present . How this has happened isn't even unknown to science; it's been explained in great detail! I suggest you watch the following playlist on YouTube: Think about it! It's a brief and simplified explanation of abiogenesis and the evolution of multicellular life, and hopefully it will make you realise that your argument of irreducible complexity is a load of bull.

Your most ridicolous statement, however, is that that the Earth is very well suited for human life is a valid argument for the existance of a designer. It's actually the other way around: The Earth is not perfectly suited for humans; we are perfectly suited for it. This is due to the mechanism driving evolution; natural selection. If you don't know what it is, or don't fully understand it, watch this video: Natural Selection Made Easy.

If you still think creationism is teh win, please explain to me why, and I will be more than happy to destroy your arguments.

Tobbe