While working on a flat-tax proposal, Homer accidentally proves that God doesn’t exist and shares it with Flanders. Classic!
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Related posts:
Homer Proves God Doesn’t Exist
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Dear Gasmonso,
Everything we, the west, have is built on faith.
Science is built on faith. You cannot move beyond 1+1=2, without faith. Once you move to 2+2=4, you are required to have faith that 1+1=2, even though you figured it out previously, you could be mistaken, or natural laws may have changed; you must have faith that 1+1=2.
If you don’t have that faith, then you are stuck at 1+1=2. You never get to higher math, or computers, or flying cars.
But science requires even a deeper faith. It requires the faith in an unprovable. Science requires that you believe in the sensory inputs of your own body, and believe that your thoughts are your own… not some pre-programmed software code.
You cannot prove that what you see, hear, feel, or think are “real”. But we must base every scientific principle upon those unprovables.
I believe, therefore, I am.
Meow.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
That’s deep man… reeeealy deep… like you just smoked a phat doobey deep.
gasmonso
April 18th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Yeah, it’s fairly obvious that 1+1=2. I mean, just hold up one finger, and then hold up another and count them. I think you’ll get the answer your looking for. But while we’re at it, how’s about a quick proof.
Let’s see if these Christian facts jive.
“fact” 1. God is all knowing (omnipotent)
“fact” 2. Humans have free will
Your religious instruction classes will clearly state that God is omnipotent. It will also clearly state that humans have a free will to either accept of reject God.
So, if God is omnipotent, then he knows everything, past and future. This includes what you plan on doing/thinking in the future. If God knows what is going to happen in the future, then we have a destiny, and that cannot be broken, otherwise that would prove God wrong, because he wouldn’t have known it was going to happen.
This clearly violates the human free will idea. If humans truly had free will, they could do whatever they wanted, but since God created us and already knows what we are going to pick, we don’t really have a choice now do we.
So theorem 1 violates theorem 2, violates God.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
You’re mistaking “faith in god” (ie, religion) with the idea of faith in general.
The two are NOT the same thing at all.
I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I do not believe any magic man in the sky is responsible for it.
April 18th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Dave and Vamp, I said nothing of any religion except science, and displayed how it is built on faith. You both respond like some religous zealots… ignoring the part of my statement that you cannot refute.
“But science requires even a deeper faith. It requires the faith in an unprovable. Science requires that you believe in the sensory inputs of your own body, and believe that your thoughts are your own… not some pre-programmed software code.”
“You cannot prove that what you see, hear, feel, or think are “realâ€. But we must base every scientific principle upon those unprovables.”
April 18th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Universe is infinate… so if god exists he must be a busy motherfucker! cause we fo sure aint the only life in the universe!
end of!
April 18th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Dear QC,
I’m pretty sure that this faith in science that you speak of is a proof based faith. I understand what you mean about our sensory imputs and all. But if I look at a ball 100 million times and every time my brain interprets it as being red and spherical, there is a huge amount of proof that that ball truly is red. (or the photons that is reflects signal a red image in our brains). I suppose there is an infinitly small probability that the ball is in fact green and square, but thats just as unlikely as you actually being a fish swimming in a pool of jelly beans now isn’t it. This “faith” in science that you speak of is more of a fact of life that we have all spent every waking moment of our existance proving.
PS, I was a stoner once too, try putting the bong down for a couple months, and it’ll all get clear again.
April 19th, 2006 at 9:28 am
the google ads on your site rule!!
http://lucknecklaces.com
ROFL
April 19th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Vamp, Thank you for revealing yourself with your stoner comments. You are an intolerant, hypocrytical, religious bigot. Your religion is science and self.
April 19th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
How can we base all religious facts on book(s) written by man because God didn’t write the religious artifacts so many base their faith. I have to believe that MAN wrote the books to push their own agenda and ideology. Now we get to reap the benefits corruption, greed, and extremist ideology. For those that have faith I applaud you, for those that don’t have faith I applaud you.
C’ya on the trail
April 19th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Science may have required faith back in antiquity when logical methods hadn’t yet been discovered, or even as recently as the 16th century when the scientific method hadn’t been fleshed out.
Those days are long gone.
We have nuclear fission, mapping the human genome, astro-physics and gene therapy medicine. Science has a proven track record, there is no need to have blind faith in something that has proven to work time and time again. Science proves its worth more and more each day with every new discovery.
QC, you are confusing faith with superstition. It does not require a superstitious leap of faith to conclude 1+1=2. You are failing miserably to refute a point that Rene Decartes proved adequately hundreds of years ago.
April 19th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
lol, religious debate.
Yes I have faith, but the only thing I have faith in is that what I perceive is true and real and that the universe contains no contradictions.
I have a choice, I can believe the above or I can believe in what The Bible says
(Sorry about not elaborating, but the two are mutually exclusive. I hope some people here can understand why without a lengthy explanation, vamp has more examples if you require them).
“Science requires that you believe in the sensory inputs of your own body”
You know what. I agree with you. Maybe it’s just that I’m weak minded, but I couldn’t live in a world where I couldn’t believe the sensory inputs of my body.
Gazz your stupid. Avoid commenting in the future
April 19th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Ah damn, my flame tags didn’t show up.
Anway what I meant was <flamegt;Gazz your stupid. Avoid commenting in the future</flamegt;
April 19th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
<flame>Gazz your stupid. Avoid commenting in the future
April 19th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
QC, I do suppose that your last statement bears some truth. Although I don’t doubt that you are free of hate for someone that is not of your belief. So eager to throw about 3 insults in a row. By the way, I didn’t catch what your religion is?, Psuedoscience?
April 19th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
vamp, I found those “insults” on this very website. Your comments seemed to be those of one demanding logic and reason in one’s beliefs, but then using name-calling (stoner) in place of logic or reason.
I didn’t think was a site for revealing one’s religion, just ridiculing that of others. :’)
I try not to hate. I really don’t think I hate anyone. I get angry from time to time… but that’s not always bad.
I don’t know you personally, but I do know you.. I think. Lets see if I can pull this off:
You think:
“he stole the 2000 election- Bush should be called Commander-in-thief”
“Muslim terrorisim is because of Israeli (and U.S.) occupation of Muslim lands”
“A one world government would end war, and be good for the world”
“Human overpopulation is destroying the planet”
“Abortion is a woman’s right, and her choice alone”
“A bunch of stupid redneck hicks voted for Bush in 04″
How’s my stereotype… or rather yours?
April 19th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
quite acurate, except for the one world govn’t. That would actually be bad, but the rest of those sound pretty good to me.
April 20th, 2006 at 12:07 am
I like this, let me try again…
You make it clear that you are against the Israeli government and state, not the Jewish people. However, you think that the Holocaust was definately over stated in scale, perhaps never happened, and that the Jews have made too much of it.
Close?
April 20th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Whoa whoa, wait a minute, you were right that I am a liberal, not a stupid moron that beleives every conspiracy theory that some agenda pushing idiot throws around. That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
April 20th, 2006 at 11:13 am
heheheh
this is cuuuuute
now for me to lambast the lot of you with my science
God is perfect, perfection is something that is purest in its intended form, the most pure thing in its intended form is nothingness as nothing at all can be less than nothing hence the reuse of the word nothing. God is nothingness, good day gentlemen.
April 20th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Dave said: “I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I do not believe any magic man in the sky is responsible for it.”
Excellent. Deserves to be on a billboard.
April 20th, 2006 at 11:49 am
You can not have “faith” in science, thats impossible. You “believe” in science. Faith and belief are not synonyms. In fact, the very definition of faith (that is applicable here) uses “belief” in its definition.
Here is an applicable definition of faith: “Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.”
I can “believe” in science because I witness it every day. No faith is required.
April 20th, 2006 at 11:59 am
sounds more like you have trust in science, saying trust is belief is ignoring the evidence and ignoring the evidence is not science
faith is trust without evidence, is this contradictory to the definition?
April 20th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
It should be noted that the symbol 2 is simply defined to be the output of the addition function (+) whose two arguments are each the multiplicative identities over the field formed by the integers (1). No faith required for this equation.
April 20th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
ah i can use math, people have faith PI has no real ending (or others that it does)
this works?
April 20th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
I would not use the word “trust” to define “faith” or “belief.” “trust” is more of a feeling or emotion. I can “trust” science because I “believe” in it.
April 20th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
On April 18th, 2006, vamp said:
—————————————-
Let’s see if these Christian facts jive.
“fact†1. God is all knowing (omnipotent)
“fact†2. Humans have free will
…if God is omnipotent, then he knows everything, past and future. This includes what you plan on doing/thinking in the future. If God knows what is going to happen in the future, then we have a destiny, and that cannot be broken, otherwise that would prove God wrong, because he wouldn’t have known it was going to happen.
————————–
Unless of course God knows everything that *can* be, every branch, the result of every choice. You can make the decision, but s/he knows where that choice will lead you. Like having all the streets and alleys of a city memorized and putting a stranger to that city in a car and turning them loose. They’ll wander down streets, make U-turns, go several times around the same block, get caught in traffic, etc. To someone that knows the city, where every car is, and what direction and speed they’re all going, it would be a simple thing to answer any question about those cars.
On the other hand, does God know what decision you will make? Most religions state that God knows what’s in your heart, but do they say outright that s/he knows every decision you’ll ever make? I doubt it. On some level, in order to embue the religious elite with power, there must be the concept that if you do what they tell you to do there’s a reward, and that would necessarily mean that you have a choice that is not predefined.
So.
God is omnipotent… up to a point.
April 20th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Good point Todd. There’s actually an interesting site that gives a quantum physics explanation of God. It basically says that God has to exist on a separate dimension of time. So basically, he’s already been to the future, because he is currently existing in it. Fairly complicated stuff, but quite interesting.
But as for your God is omnipotent … up to a point. I can see this being a good religious truth. But I was once an astute Lutheran in Catechism class. And in that class you learn that saying that God is anything less than all powerfull, would be blasphemy. And I don’t think that I’m going out on much of a limb, assuming that all other Christian facets are much the same.
(though I guess it also says, do not question the Lord your God. But that doesn’t exactly apply to me now does it?)
April 20th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
You all can believe whatever you want. However, you can’t deny that math and science allow for predictive accuracy that praying could never provide. Even if you don’t understand it, it works every time.
April 20th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Speaking as someone who has fought in religious flamewars so often and for so long that I’m actually ashamed of it, I must say…this forum has the most piss-poor, god-awful, and just plain stupid arguments that I have ever seen. Neither side has any idea what they’re discussing!
I had no idea that people this stupid would think they can argue about something this complex. Stoners, rednecks, liberal hippie space cadets or bible-thumping closed minded bigots, you’re all retards.
April 20th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
QC, as long as you’re tolling, building strawmen, whatever. Why don’t you tell us how you feel about the Jews? I’m sure you believe that even though they are God’s chosen people, that won’t stop them from burning in hell if they don’t realize that Jesus Christ is their Lord. Golly! aren’t stereotypes fun?
Why the hell can’t anyone just talk about the Simpsons?
April 20th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Speaking of arguing I’ve gotten no responses to comment #12.
This makes me very sad.
Could you please respond to #12 QC. This would make me very happy.
Oh ya, and could the mod delete #13 and #14 as well.
Should have included those two in my initial hit list.
April 20th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
scwizard, don’t be sad, I started to respond to yours, but I got sidetracked… and I think you are fairly sound in what you state… but…
The universe doesn’t contain contradictions? How is this knowable. It is not.
What I, or you perceive as true or real is subjective. It is a singular point of view. So to the individual, perception is reality- even if it is a pink elephant seen in a drunken haze… it is reality for the observer.
I don’t think you’re weak minded for believing your sensory inputs, but they are fallible- you are a human. I once saw a bear in my darkened bedroom. I knew it couldn’t be a bear… but there it was. I turned on the light, and it was a coat rack.
But I think that can mostly fit in with what you wrote; you have faith and believe in unprovables- we all do.
April 20th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
i’ll concede the bit on trust
but i’d also love a responce for my toy concept in #20
April 21st, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Whatever the arguments for or against God, there is no doubt in my mind that Christianity has expanded the bounds of science immeasurably. Christianity was the first religion where humanity was no longer bounded by shrines or a temple, where they were able to go out and experience the world to experience the God now living amongst them. This is the very basis and reason that empiricism came about. Without Christianity, we’re still stuck back in Grecian logic problems, which have limited applicability to the real world.
As to my own faith, you can probably deduce from the above that I am a Christian. I find it very hard to believe that God and science cannot coexist. Impossible, in fact. There is no part of science that disproves God. I can see how science could be used to attempt to render faith in God irrelevant, but I believe that is largely people who have other, often perfectly valid, reasons for not wanting to believe in a God. However, simply the number of scientists that are Christian, for example, should be a testament to the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive.
I would appreciate any comments you may have, but please try to render them constructive.
Thanks,
Daniel
April 23rd, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Itanshi-
I like what your wrote in #25.
I think the perfect response to your #20 is:
April 23rd, 2006 at 8:58 pm
It certainly cannot be proven that we or the universe exist, or whether any of our sensory organs mean anything. Science, however, does not deal with this issue. It deals with observation and the observable universe. Even if the universe is completely different than it appears, it does not affect the fundamental principles of how things work in the universe as we observe it.
Although there is a possibility that the theory of gravitation or other ground breaking theories are totally meaningless, the possibility is very minute.
It is very probable, however, that some of theses fundamental theories are incorrect. The main difference between science and religion is how these discrepancies are resolved. Religion has historically resulted with violence, and it is the definition of science that it results with a new theory incorporating and explaining these discrepancies.
April 24th, 2006 at 8:35 am
luigivampa,
The largest amount of killing in history, by far, was done in the name of anti-religion, science worshipping entities. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, and their logical, scientific, religionless ilk murdered over 43 MILLION people.
They logically decided, using all of the big science they could conjure, that genocide and purges made perfect sense.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
QC, don’t forget all the religious fanatics and believers who killed millions of people during the Spanish Civil War, the Succession wars, and the like. Groups like the Ustasha and Iron Guard cheerfully followed Hitler’s example despite their Christian orientation.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:47 am
The universe doesn’t contain contradictions? How is this knowable. It is not.
I never said that this was noable, I just said that it’s something I think every sane person should belive.
If your going to go around believing that the universe contains contradictions then you should believe in faries and dragons and little gnomes who steal your pencils as well as god.
What I, or you perceive as true or real is subjective. It is a singular point of view. So to the individual, perception is reality- even if it is a pink elephant seen in a drunken haze… it is reality for the observer.
I don’t think you’re weak minded for believing your sensory inputs, but they are fallible- you are a human. I once saw a bear in my darkened bedroom. I knew it couldn’t be a bear… but there it was. I turned on the light, and it was a coat rack.
That’s not what I quite meant by beliving your senses all the time, it’s more a general thing. But basically something should be believed if it’s been observed to be true repeatedly, this is the basis for all science. I know my vision can sometimes be a little hazy, but what I can’t go around beliving is that my senses are being systematically fooled.
Are you saying that your belive that scientist’s senses are being systematically fooled when they say that the planet is over a billion years old, because that would be quite absurd.
With the senses thing you need to know where to draw the line. The problem is if you go around beliving the planet is a bunch of thousand years old, then there is no reason for you to not belive that your a brain in a vat and that none of us exist.
About the contradictions again:
It is impossible to know wheather there are contradtictions in the universe or not, but it’s impossible to live a day to day life if you belive that there are.
If there are contraditions in the world then ANYTHING can be true. The only clear line you can draw there is that there are no contraditions ever. Show me one and I’ll show you a skeptic that can prove your a fool.
For a practical example of how anything can be ture in a universe with contradictions see the flying spegetti monster.
So I’m wondering. Do you belive contradictions exist? Do you belive that senses are often systematicaclly fooled?
April 26th, 2006 at 10:48 am
my comment isn’t showing up immediatly…
~= scwizard =~
Anyways, focus on those last two questions. I want to know who actually belives in those things.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Comments are slightly delayed as they are processed for spam now. That’s been quite an issue lately and I don’t want to force people to register just to leave a comment.
gasmonso
April 27th, 2006 at 1:09 am
History Guy- your numbers are vague, and if you flesh them out, you’ll see they pale next to the science-worshiping murderers I listed.
scwizard- scientists and human senses need not be “systematicaclly fooled” to be wrong. There need not be any intent or guiding hand to blind or fool men for men to be mistaken.
I’ll show you a scientific contradiction that exists, but I don’t need you to show me I’m a fool:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
“It is believed that the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two great achievements of physics in the 20th century, contradict one another for two main reasons. One is that the former is an essentially deterministic theory and the latter is essentially indeterministic. Secondly, general relativity relies mainly on the force of gravity while quantum mechanics relies mainly on the other three fundamental forces, those being the strong, the weak, and the electromagnetic. The question of how to resolve this contradiction remains an area of active research (see, for example, quantum gravity)”
Now, this contradiction may be a contradiction in our own understanding, not one that exists in the universe. Perhaps one day science will understand it and put forth a new theory that explains it all… “spooky action at a distance” and everything.
But I don’t think that is what you mean by contradiction, I think you are directing that at perceived biblical inconsistancies.
I looked up your Flying Spagehtti Monster, and I must say, that is a very poorly constructed parody, and is not constructive. Intelligent Design is the target of the FSM parody.
If Intelligent Design specifically mentioned a super advanced society of aliens, that terraformed the earth, genetically engineered the flora and fauna… well, you tell me, if you change the name of the creator from “God” to “Aliens” does that fit better into your brain?
May 1st, 2006 at 3:27 am
Sorry if I missed it already, but according to my wonderful friend, the dictionary, faith is:
faith n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Since science is that which can be observed and logically described by material evidence…um…science isn’t faith right? …pwned by a dictionary man…
May 1st, 2006 at 2:44 pm
well, you tell me, if you change the name of the creator from “God†to “Aliens†does that fit better into your brain?
What I’m talking about when I speak of contradictions is that it is impossible to believe that god created man in his current form less then half a million years ago and that carbon dating works at the same time. And if you believe that carbon dating can be fooled it’s impossible to believe in basic physics without having another contradiction.
So as far as carbon dating goes what do you belive?
Oh ya, and don’t bother responding to post 44. It’s really stupid. It relies on the assumption that a dictionary always provides the full meaning of a word.
May 7th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
QC isn’t responding…
DAMN!
May 8th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
It is a tool of man, falible and perspective limited.
So now the monkeys have risen to the top.
Able to explain what is and was, and how it came to be.
Where do these monkeys stop?
These beautiful monkeys will be Gods- you’ll see.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Took you long enough -.-
So what causes carbon dating to fail? Why would it ever fail? How can we predict when it will fail?
May 10th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Do you understand exactly how carbon dating works?
How can it never fail?
How can we know that has never failed, and never will?
What forces (gravity, cosmic rays, nuetrinos, etc.) affect the decay of carbon 14?
What forces are different today than at different times in the past?
I have more questions if you can answer all of those- though some are unknowable. So it comes down to you having faith in science.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
It essentially boils down to this:
We’ve used carbon dating and we know that it is capable of predicting the age of stuff extremely accurately.
There is no reason to believe that it would fail for stuff past a certain age.
People don’t have “faith” in carbon dating, all they know is that they’ve tried it, and that it works.
Therefore, because everything follows sensible patterns there is a reason to believe that it would work with stuff old enough that we can’t find other methods of dating it while there is no reason to believe that it wouldn’t work.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
“We’ve used carbon dating”
You have? I don’t think you have. I think you are faithfully accepting the testimony of others.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Faithfully accepting the testimony of others when they say carbon dating works is like faithfully accepting the testimony of others when they say sulfuric acid could kill you -.-
What I’m saying is that if something can predict something it must have a great deal of truth in it. I’d believe in a christian god if the amount of sin in the world was a more accurate way of predicting hurricanes then weather calculations.
May 25th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
“If God knows what is going to happen in the future, then we have a destiny, and that cannot be broken, otherwise that would prove God wrong, because he wouldn’t have known it was going to happen.
This clearly violates the human free will idea. If humans truly had free will, they could do whatever they wanted, but since God created us and already knows what we are going to pick, we don’t really have a choice now do we.”
God been all-knowing doesn’t contracdict with the idea of free will. God leaves you the freedom of choice, your destiny is set by you, he just knew it beforehand. Knowing is different from setting. The idea of freewill is that you make your own decision without the influence of god.
May 26th, 2006 at 10:04 am
I’m sorry I missed this discussion at its height! QC, based on what you have written thus far, it seems that you reject inductive reasoning as logically valid. You are definitely not alone in this view (though I disagree with you). The philosopher David Hume (http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humeepis.htm) was the most successful proponent of such a view. You might be interested in his writings. A large group of people has taking this one step further and has rejected DEDUCTIVE reasoning as well. They are called Buddhists.
Also noting that our senses are fallible does not suggest that we should reject them. Though assuming that our senses ARE being systematically fooled is a great intellectual starting point for developing epistemology. This is exactly what the first of the empirical philosophers, Rene Descartes (http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm), did in the 17th century. He first asked if all my senses are wrong, what could one know for certain? He first conclusion is world-famous because of its insight: “Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am).†His argument basically comes down to the following. One cannot be tricked into existing. All of one’s senses can be fooled, but someone must be the one being fooled. You should read his “Meditations on First Philosophy†if you are interested in the fallibility of human senses and its potential consequences. Ironically, this doubting of the senses that Descartes proposed and that you use to claim that science is based on faith is exactly the thought process that led to the scientific method and launched the Age of Reason in Europe.
October 29th, 2006 at 10:18 am
I’m getting a little bit fed up with all the nonsense that is being spoken (and written) these days.I’m getting a little bit fed up with all the nonsense that is being spoken (and written) these days. First of all, at the beginning of this thread there is this big deal about ‘1+1=2’, lemme just kill that thought. In math, 1+1=2 because we say it does. If someone doesn’t agree, well, let them propose something else and base some calculations on his thought.
What I mean to say is this: “Math exists independent of human existence!†Now I hear people go: “….uhhh, but we invented math man!â€
To those of you who think math is created rather then discovered I want to say, get yourself a math-book, cause without at least some basic knowledge about the subjects you are dissing don’t speak up.
The same goes for all those semi-philosophical statements posted. Every philosopher worth something agrees that his or her view will be outdated by the end of this decennium. The only philosophers not able to grasp the simple inadequacy of the human thinking process are religious instituted and their followers.
We as a race have gone from ‘believing’ that the earth was round, to flat, back to round but every religious statement (especially Christianity) has remained untouched by the basic foundations of doubt. Maybe that’s what a religion is supposed to do…..take away doubts, but seriously. What God would be interested in a group of people unwilling to better their own independent reasoning? What God would be interested in a group of people unwilling to use the mental capacities given to them by Him!
The most important part of being human is to doubt, the most basic addition to life is doubt, please don’t kill our humanity by destroying doubt.
Tx for reading the ramblings of a frustrated believer ïŠ
November 15th, 2006 at 1:08 am
Well ok, We beleive we have destiny in Islam, but its kind of different. First of all we beleive in one god and Muhamed was his messenger [ we aslo beleive in moses, jesus, but as prophets ).
Ok now we beleive that destiny is only as such, that god chooses when we are born and when we die, how we will look and our strenghts and weaknesses, but we have the choice to reject god or accpet god, we have the choice to do right or wrong.
A simple example would be that say there is a teacher, the teacher can KNOW wat the student is possible to get in the end of year exams, pass or fail. We muslims beleive that this life is a test.
There is a difference between destiny and knowledge, God Almighty has all the knowledge, but he lets us choose, to make it simple, remember the teahcers example.This life is the exams, and the results come in the hereafter.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:22 am
One more things, the most influencial human EVER was Prophet Muhamed, before you say its just an Arab, please, just research five minutes and you’l find that there is more to him. One thing you probably never knew was that he was illiterate [ so do not compare him to other phylosophers]. By the way, muslims are not terrorists, its like saying there is that some-one in Australia murders a couple of people, not all Australians would be terrorist. THe prophet used to say before the Battle of Badr and Uhud [search on it at google/yahoo] that muslims should not kill elderly, woman, children, un-armed enemies (even in battle) as well as plants and treees. So the people who destroy cities buliding and kill innocents, are not following the words of the prohet { who was illiterate AND the most influencial man ever }.
i kNow i am rambling on bnut thanx for reading. By the way 1+1=2 exists because god gave us the knowledge. Have u ever thought why we use only 10% of our brain, well the prophet muhamed explained this over 1400 years ago, how, well it can only mean that these words are from god.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:33 am
@Muslim Teen
i was under the impression muslims weren’t allowed to drink alcohol. guess i was wrong.
“should not kill elderly, woman, children, un-armed enemies”
so not only are you a bunch of drunks, you can’t even follow your own prophet. niceeee.
“One thing you probably never knew was that he was illiterate”
oh, i could have guessed. certainly explains a few things. that much nonsense in a written text is only challenged my the our own most holy bible.
“So the people who destroy cities buliding and kill innocents, are not following the words of the prohet”
so who is? anyone? didn’t think so.
“as well as plants and treees”
oh THAT makes complete sense.
“Have u ever thought why we use only 10% of our brain, well the prophet muhamed explained this over 1400 years ago”
quote? illiterate brain surgeon. this is getting better.
lay off the booze, ok? leave it for the experts.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:04 am
Umm actually it was proven a few years ago we use about 90%+ of our brain :) that whole 10% thing is just a myth…
So I guess he goofed on that one, but everyone makes mistakes :D
except me… and ummm god?
:P
Cheers
October 16th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
im gonna give your heads a rattle and propose two theories
1. God has a creator, if every creation has a creator that god must also have one, or we can ignore that fact for our own personal benefit
2. Theres more than one god/creator
October 17th, 2007 at 6:05 am
turtles upon turtles :P
October 17th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Hey that dude,
Your scenario presupposes the impossibility of self-created entities. The creator of the universe or one of its meta-creators may be self-caused. The other possibility is that not all things require a creator. The universe may have an infinite past. The last possibility is a loop of creators. The universe may ultimately create God who, recognizing Its own improbably, goes back in time to create the universe in such a way that It will be the inevitable result.
None of this, of course, gets us any closer to new knowledge, but they are fun things to think about at the very least.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
By definition 2+2=4. By definition 4= to four ones. Two ones added together gets you 2. So 2+2=4 is a simplification of 1+1+1+1=4. No faith involved. Not only that your logic is flawed. If you don’t need faith to know that 1+1=2, then you don’t need faith to know that 2+2=4. Numbers are symbols created by man and they represent something real, this means math is verifiable with the world around you.
To circumvent what we see, hear, feel, taste, and smell might not be real, multiple people do multiple experiments. If they coincide, then it is right, if not, the hypothesis must be revised to fit the data.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
@boris
I have generally found Muslims to be pretty normal people. In fact they tend to act just like everyone else.
The bible says you must stone disobedient children. If you don’t follow this you are not a christian. Interesting enough, the bible also says that it is ok to kill non-believers. Who was Jesus’ grandfather? (see Mat 1:2-27 and Luke 3:23-38). Why is his lineage listed, as God was his supposed father? What do you think of these? Leviticus 25:44-45, Deuteronomy 2:32-34, Deuteronomy 20, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Luke 12:42-48, Romans 13:1-7
Proverbs 13:24 says beat your kids. Deuteronomy 2:32-34 god’s people attack and destroy everything and everyone in a city. Numbers 31:7 god commanded the death of every man. Exodus 23:24 commanded that people destroy other religions. Genesis 1:26, Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:7 god speaks in plurals(more than one ;). Deuteronomy 7:1-2 God stole land from other people to give to the israelites and ordered the genocide of the original owners. Lamentations 4:6,11 God set fire to his own peoples’ city after sodom was destroyed. Joshua 11:20 God made people attack the Israelites so that they be destroyed. Genesis 7:20-23 God killed almost everything. Thessalonians 2:11-12 God lied. Ezekiel 20:25 God intentionally gave bad laws. Judges 1:19 God wasn’t all powerful.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Jacob - It gets really old having to say this over and over, but the fact is that all of the passages you cite, except for two, are from the Old Testament. And it is Christian doctrine that the New Testament REPLACES the Old. It is a new covenant between god and humans. This is one of the reasons Christians can ignore the passages you mention. But another, and even more important, thing that you ignore is that Christains are not murdering people every day in the name of their religion. Muslims are. Period. Full Stop. Every day muslims murder people in the name of their religion with the full support of islamic teachings and muslim people. imams throughout the islamic world (and even in the USA and Europe) preach murder and hatred, muslims throughout the world recruit children and mentally retarded people to murder. And very very few muslims object. islam is the practice of murder and torture and pedophilia. The End.
As for the two new testament passages you cite, most Christians just ignore them.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
rucekr,
How is it decided by Christians which parts of the new testament are the ones to ignore, and which should be followed?
Furthermore, are the “bad” passages there because of a mistake that god made? Similarly, did god have to replace the old testament because it was faulty?
Finally, why would a purportedly omnipotent being (kind of goes with the god territory) even need a book at all to get its message into the minds of humans? Surely an omnipotent being could just implant its message with no props or books needed.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Korgan - I am not a Christian, nor am I saying anything in the Bible is true, nor how Christians decide what Biblical teachings to follow. I am merely pointing out what Christianity teaches and how it is practiced. I do not think there is any more proof for the reality of Christian theology than any other. That is to say, there is no proof at all, and it is my belief that it is no more likely that Mary had a virgin birth than that mohammed rode to heaven on a white horse or whatever nonsense they teach.
If I were debating a Christian about the truth of her religion, I would be asking the same questions you have asked me, but I wasn’t.
I just think it is important to make sure that the “equivalent” crowd be told that Christianity and islam are not equally bad or destructive as practiced today. muslims murder everyday in the name of their cult with the support of their “sacred” texts. Christians do not.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades (I and II), Holocaust…I think Christians have killed more than their share of people. Big fricken deal that they are currents doing it “now.”
August 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“Inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades (I and II), Holocaust…I think Christians have killed more than their share of people. Big fricken deal that they are currents doing it “now.â€â€
The difference between “then†and “now†IS a “big fricken dealâ€, as you so eloquently put it. Especially when you are speaking of bombs and beheadings. Consider, what other time do we actually have but “nowâ€? Consider who wants you dead or subjected now, a Crusader from the Eleventh century or an islamic terrorist from today?
But to give your “arguments†respect they do not really warrant, again, the Inquisition is over. Has been for a couple of hundred years. So what does the Inquisition matter today? And besides the Catholic church has repudiated it, and Protestant churches never practiced it, while muslims have never repudiated their depredations on non-muslims and muslim apostates – which continue to this day. Another sign that Christianity grew up and reformed itself while islam did not and most likely will not. Islamic inquisitions go on today. Do you not read what happens to non-muslims in muslim countries? Witch hunts? Over. Except in muslim countries where people are still tried and punished for witchcraft. The Holocaust, again, is over, but I make no bones about the fact that it took place against and was enabled by a background of centuries old anti-Semitism among Christians, which is matched by continuing anti-Semitism among muslims.
And the Crusades. People who make the arguments you make think they have really brought out the big guns when they mention the Crusades. They never, however, mention that they were in response to three centuries of muslim conquest and slaughter that preceded them. And those conquests included part of Europe, and muslims were still trying to invade Europe then and have continued to do so right down to the present day. The final straw for Europe at the time, in a sense, was when muslim armies conquered the Holy Land which was sacred to Jews and Christians ONLY, despite claims by muslims to the contrary today. The Crusades were defensive in nature for the most part, even if they were brutal – which was the standard in warfare of the day - and invasive. In other words, they were no worse than muslim brutality and a lot less extensive than islamic warfare and conquest. Read a description of the muslim conquest of Constantinople for a perfect example. So if you are going to insist on the importance of what happened centuries ago, then at least make an effort to be complete.
And by crusade II, I assume the war in Iraq. Yawn. You lefties are so predictable and boring anymore. You are so blinded by your hatred of the west in general and the USA in particular, that you can’t see or argue straight. It probably accounts for such garbled language as “Big fricken deal that they are currents doing it “now.â€â€ Such sputtering and arm waving is merely an admission of the baselessness of your arguments. And a final comment: You don’t even really believe what you are saying, I’ll bet. And I believe I can prove it if you answer this question honestly: Where would you rather live, in a Christian or an islamic country?
August 8th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Depends on if the Christian/Islamic country had the separation of Church and State. Given the choice I wouldn’t mind either so long as the Separation was in effect. I apologize for the error in syntax since I was typing it at 446AM, as the time tag states, and I needed to get to work. As for Crusades II, it was a typo. I meant to say I thru IX, in reference to the established nine ancient crusades conducted from 1095-1272 C.E. The attacks that you mentioned were for conquest, NOT to further a religion. The Christians started that. In fact, when the Muslims controlled the Holy Land they allowed Jews and Christians to worship freely. It wasn’t until after the betrayal by the Christians for their “Holy War” that the Muslims decide that maybe having there people around was a bad idea. Go look up the Siege of Antioch for reference.
In reference to the war in Iraq, that is not a crusade. The war is one of conquest. I should know considering I served 4 1/2 years in the service. How much time have you done?
As to your question regarding the 11th Century Crusader the the Modern Islamic Extremest, they would both wish to kill me since I am neither Christian nor Muslim.
If you paid attention to the news, hate crimes are still being committed in this country by individuals with a religious agenda. Take the dragging death of James Byrd, the Oklahoma City Bombing, or the stoning death of Michail Makarenko as examples of crimes committed with a Christian influence. Were you aware that white supremacists groups justify their actions with scripture, have always done that, and continue to that do? That is your “NOW.”
Imagine, if you would, if the Christians had their way with this country. We’d have homosexuals, feminists, and anyone who didn’t follow their dear and fluffy God in jail. Just think to the comments Jerry Falwell made following the 9/11 attacks. What kind of country would that be? Not one I’d want to live in.
To close I would like to say that I don’t hate the west or the US. I simple hate the Christian Agenda.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
In other words, you wouldn’t live in a muslim country.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
In my words “I wouldn’t mind either so long as [separation of church and state] was in effect.”
August 14th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
But there is no seperation of church and state in islam, so you wouldn’t couldn’t live in an islamic country.
But the 11th century crusader is not here and now. The muslim murderer is. Why does that not make a difference to you? I know you’ll tell me that GWB leads neo-crusader forces, but I think that is nonsense, won’t hunt, and I can’t be bothered. And muslims have never allowed any other people to practice their religion freely despite all the propaganda from muslims you might have read. You do know about dhimmis, right? Do you know what is happening right now in Egypt with Copts? Just one example of muslim murderous intolerance going on right now. And for the record, I would call all the Crusades wars of REconquest (of the Holy Land)with a lot of human greed and brutality mixed in. The Crusades were focused in the Christian Holy Land, they did not spread across North Africa which was also muslim by conquest.
I never saw a word about a Christian motivation for the murder of James Bryd. Can you direct me to your source? And I do not know of the stoning death you mention, but will look it up. But again, so what? That’s 2 to islam’s tens of thousands - in the past decade. I’ll even throw in the abortion doctor murderers, all - what - 7 of them, though I never heard that any of them were screaming “In the name of the father, son and holy ghost” as they killed.
Why do you not see the difference and insist that isalm and Christianity are the equally bad? You really sadden me, as you are obviously pretty smart, yet you’re blinding yourself to a force that is bent on replacing all of your freedoms with sharia, and they are getting there because of people refusing to face facts and because of an absurd guilt we westerners feel about things that nobody alive today had anything to do with.
As for white supremists, you think they have any actual power or that they actually do much of anything? I don’t, so show me the evidence that they are as bad as, o, Al Quacka. Yes, I am sure they have murdered and that is no small thing, and they are vile people and have no legitimate place in American life. BUT, what scripture do they quote? And, again, how much power do they really have? I believe most Americans consider them vile.
But Christians do have their way in this country every single day. Isn’t it something like 80% of Americans who profess Christianity? Doesn’t that make us a Christian country? Gay people, feminists, and atheists are not jailed here. In islamic countries they are not jailed either, for very long, before they are executed. Not even a bacterium like Fred Phelps calls for gay people to be murdered. That should be all you need to know that Christianity is a better system for human beings than islam. Did you know that in Norway, muslim communities are waiting for their “religious” leaders to decide if gay people should be executed or not. Clearly they are not interested in adopting western values. So why are they there? In American many, many churches have accepted gay people, ordained gay (and female)people, married gay people. Can you point me to one mosque or muslim group (not gay muslim group) that does the same?
And what happened when Fallwell made his remarks? He was repudiated from pulpits across the nation. Nothing like that happens in mosques when muslims murder, that I know of. And there have been plenty of muslims and muslim apologists posting on this site, and I have never seen a comment from one of them that mentioned that their imam preached tolerance. Seems like if they did, the muslims would have put that front and center.
Plus I am old enough now to have heard 40 years of “The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!” and yet they have never actually arrived. I’m talking about the Fallwell/Pat Robertson kind of Christian fundamentalist who were supposed to have taken over by now and have us all living like Puritans. Didn’t happen. Most likely is never going to happen. After all, the president is an evangelical Christian, one of those ones that people so fear will take over, and yet, well, gay people are NOT in jail, George and Laura are even known to have gay friends, feminists still get to talk their talk, and so on. Where’s the beef?
September 4th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
to those who believe that islamic teachings promotes killing and violence in the name of the religion, let me clarify a few topics for you.
there are extremists of all faiths and beliefs who resort to killing and violence for whatever reason
the main flaw in history and media is that they ARE profit companies and to make a sale they must make the customer happy. like it or not, bias will always exist in stories heard from media or history sources, and emphasis for some events and not others also works to disguise what is not wanted. by emphasis it can be anything from depth, to amount of coverage, to lacking sufficient info on another topic. this means that while i say you may not know the whole story of who is doing all the killing, i cannot be sure that other groups kill more, only that what is written in the book known by so many, unchanged, never translated for the purpose of spreading religion to others, must be a true and valid definition of the faith.
many people in this world regardless of religion, kill others due to their own strong belief in a faith and the wish to rid the world of supposedly ‘inferior’ faiths.
in islamic teachings, it is taught to RESPECT all other faiths/beliefs/people/religions even though it does not say to believe them. respecting a faith means coexisting with it, not destroying it.
it does not say anywhere in islamic teaching to kill a man, rather that it is a ’sin’.
for the logical thinkers, a religion based on doing good more than bad, and stating that killing is bad, would not have a follower that truly believed in it who also kills others. the only exception is for the person who wishes to enter the realms of hell for all of eternity. unlike christianity, a muslim does not earn a spot in heaven for simply believing in it or accepting the main prophet as reality. as stated earlier, more good than bad must be done, or payment for excessive sin will take place.
the terrorists may claim to be part of a government or religion, but here is a real difficult concept for some to accept. by committing these terroristic acts, they break the laws of their country and their claimed religion (for main religions and countries that are based on a moral system around a certain religion, or collection of religions) therefore invalid representations of said religion/state. sure you can always say that thats where they came from and what they previously believed, this we cannot change, but they cannot be credited with representing others of said religion/state. thats like saying an athlete on steroids achieves what he wants, but by doing it is comparable to all other athletes of his sport. the reason why they are disqualified and discredited is because it is NOT natural, not promoted, and deemed wrong.
no person is perfect therefore doing more good than bad seems very difficult in the society we live in today. this is true, however we must think about this. taking thomas jeffersons ideas which may not have been his own (i did not research which parts of his writing were taken from others) we are all given 3 basic undeniable rights. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. this is true as we all must live at some point or another to be killed therefore the right to life is valid. we have liberty because even when placed in an iron mold at the exact shape of our body to the point where we cannot move, our internals cannot be controlled by others, our mind will always function as long as we live (yes even a vegetable whos brain has ’stopped’ requires brainwaves for the body to carry out functions such as breathing or the heart pumping blood therefore the mind still works). we have the pursuit of happiness because whether there are consequences or not, we can choose to do what we are able to hence what makes us happy can be attempted to be done. my point is, given life, freedom to think/do, and the pursuit of happiness, faith in any religion is possible. to achieve the fullest rewards of the islamic religion, one must not commit bad deeds, and if they do, work to break habits. deeds are weighted on a scale which we do not know enough to accurately predict what outcomes occur, however, we do know that killing another person with a hate filled heart is the worst deed that can be committed. a logical thinker and a religious thinker would then agree that a muslim true to his religion no matter what circumstances, would not kill for any purpose other than to save the lives of other people subject to the targets killing. this justifies war in islamic countries. a good deed, saving a life, and a bad deed, killing, and assuming they balance each other, the sinful muslim is only the one who starts the war knowing that what he has done will only lead to death.
this argument may also apply to other religions as i do not know the specifics of them.
i did mention christianity in the argument however i have no intention to offend christians of tell anyone what religion is right or wrong because that would require my knowing of more than is humanly possible (limited to the perception of the 5 senses, it is not possible to “know” that God exists, only believe it). my point is though, that to assume something about such a large group of people without even taking the responsibility to learn about the validity of your statements, is ignorant and to an extent immoral. it shows your *intolerance* for this group of people, possibly disgust, and/or hate as well.
sorry if any thoughts are incomplete, i was editing the various sections at the same time trying to get my intended points across.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
having read #73 i would like to add that an execution of a person based on beliefs will never happen by the country’s law, or religion’s law. only based on action will it take place, if rules are not followed, then whatever consequence is/was decided should take effect, like it or not. this is why the belief system in religions do not always follow the guidelines of a belief system in a country. sometimes we have to choose which is more severe. a gay man is free to have gay thoughts in an islamic country but if that country says that any men who kiss each other on the lips will die, it is the person’s choice, back to jeffersons ideas, to kiss the other person and be executed for it. now although you do know that people have their hands cut off for stealing, or are stoned to death for raping someone in some areas in the middle east, did you know that these crimes are only committed by the ignorant? that nobody who is too young to know is punished with this severity and that anyone old enough to know does not commit such actions? just something to think about
fyi ignorant is given the definition as not knowing something that you SHOULD know. you aren’t ignorant for not knowing another man’s religion or another state’s law but if you intend to go to another state or believe another religion, you are ignorant not to know the laws of either.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Being an atheist is a philosophical stance. It is not enough simply to declare yourself one: That is mere dogmatism—like announcing, without further argument, that you don’t believe in free will or objective values. If you wish to be an intellectually interesting atheist, you are obliged to give some evidence for your position. After all, there are plenty of rational and fiercely intelligent thinkers—Garry Wills, to name one—who don’t agree with you.
The evidentiary ledger has two sides: reasons for believing God exists, and reasons for believing God doesn’t exist. It is sometimes claimed that science has annihilated all the reasons in the pro-God column. That was close to being true in the 19th century. Victorian geologists were able to show that the Earth was vastly older than the Bible supposed. Chemists demystified life by synthesizing organic molecules in the lab. Darwin scuppered the notion that a divine artificer was needed to explain the marvelously adaptive designs found in nature. By the end of the 19th century, a purely material worldview—one that excluded supernatural explanations or spiritual phenomena, let alone a deity—seemed quite plausible.
That is pretty much the worldview staked out by today’s public atheists. They haven’t come to terms with 20 th-century science, which revived some of the reasons in the pro-God column. The discovery that the universe began with a creationlike Big Bang around 13 billion years ago, for example, breathed new life into the so-called cosmological argument, which posits God as the first cause of nature. The discovery that the fundamental laws of nature contained constants that appear to have been fine-tuned so that the cosmos would eventually yield intelligent life lent new credence to the design argument for God’s existence. Quantum theory dematerialized reality, making the cosmos seem more like a thought than like a machine. But whose thought?
September 24th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Justin, if you are going to copy and paste content from elsewhere, such as this article that you obviously used, at least give the source credit. Otherwise, your post constitutes plagiarism (not to mention copyright infringement).
Regardless, religion is ridiculous.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Lets keep it simple people.
Exceptional claims require exception evidence. As there is no reason to even consider there being a creator with the scientific evidence the human race has currently amassed, there is no reason to look for one. Abiogenesis? sure, let’s investigate! Origin of the universe? Absolutely! Super magically delicious creators? Whhuh?
The bible and the koran are 2 of the most bloody disgusting (man made!) booksI’ve ever read. I cannot imagine letting children read them in the entirety. People who follow these religions should be ashamed of themselves.
These people (the religious) are claiming things outside the realm of reality. If Jebus or that illiterate douche Mohammad were alive today, they’d be put into a mental institution, and rightly so.