Ye Religion Thread

[QuakeDuke]

not if you use a little brain power (something religious people tend to not use).
DHG

I see. I suppose there's an educational level that would be an acceptable level for religious people to attain that would help enlighten them so they could have the brain power to intelligently discuss the topics found on these formum boards? If so, what level would that be?

clearly, reaper's 3rd grade writing format is unacceptable.
DHG

Actually, I thought (and it's a fact that is based on what is easily seen on all the boards on this forum) there exists no required format to participate. I guess I didn't know there was a critera to be met before anyone's opinion / style was acceptable. If this is so, who gets to decide what is acceptable?

QD
Hmmm... I must meditate on this

[quadz]

ill respond once there's a normal writing effort.

I suppose that now before we continue, we must define normal writing effort......

Ah, yes.  Clearly a question of nature vs. nurture! 

Find the copper tablet box,
open its lock of bronze,
undo the fastening of its secret opening.
Take and read out from the lapis lazuli tablet
how Gilgamesh went through every hardship.

Supreme over other kings, lordly in appearance,
he is the hero, born of Uruk, the goring wild bull.
He walks out in front, the leader,
and walks at the rear, trusted by his companions.
Mighty net, protector of his people,
raging flood-wave who destroys even walls of stone!
Offspring of Lugalbanda, Gilgamesh is strong to perfection,
son of the august cow, Rimat-Ninsun;... Gilgamesh is awesome to perfection.
It was he who opened the mountain passes,
who dug wells on the flank of the mountain.
It was he who crossed the ocean, the vast seas, to the rising sun,
who explored the world regions, seeking life.


Regards,

[quadz]

i don't

[DaHanG]

i had to fix a lot of mispelling

your crazy

setenace

along with your anti-MLA format writing style your grammar and spelling is consistent.

[DaHanG]

not if you use a little brain power (something religious people tend to not use).
DHG

I see. I suppose there's an educational level that would be an acceptable level for religious people to attain that would help enlighten them so they could have the brain power to intelligently discuss the topics found on these formum boards? If so, what level would that be?

clearly, reaper's 3rd grade writing format is unacceptable.
DHG

as factual as it is that lack of religious belief is positively correlated with both IQ and education, i was just poking fun.

i did not say it was unacceptable for reaper to write like a 3rd grader because it's against forum policy. i was speaking for myself as i do not indulge in conversation with intellectual inferiors.

[reaper]

your a strange one dahang
grammar doesn't have a thing to do with wether you reply or not. besides i rely on spell check now, and i can type 130 wpm. so i don't really sweat it.
if your intellectually superior i'm sure you could discern my post, using your ultimate brain power to deduce any improper grammar.

this explains how i feel pretty well. and why i would bet on what he has to say.
it seems aside from faith, there is some science behind why there is a god.   if you read this there's no point in nitpicking what this guy has to say either, anything you have to say there would be nothing to pick at. 
and yeah i'd put my money in his argument
http://www.gradresources.org/worldview_articles/evidence_for_god.shtml

[QuakeDuke]

as factual as it is that lack of religious belief is positively correlated with both IQ and education, i was just poking fun.

So is it the higher the IQ and greater the education the greater the lack of religious belief or you are just poking fun? Or both?
 

i did not say it was unacceptable for reaper to write like a 3rd grader because it's against forum policy.

True. I guess because your statement was "clearly, reaper's 3rd grade writing format is unacceptable" and it ended there I took it to mean to everyone since you didn't say to whom it was unacceptable

i was speaking for myself as i do not indulge in conversation with intellectual inferiors.

Ok. I grok. That would mean because we are indulging in conversation, I'm not considered to be an intellectual inferior?

QD

[QuakeDuke]

ill respond once there's a normal writing effort.

I suppose that now before we continue, we must define normal writing effort......

Ah, yes.  Clearly a question of nature vs. nurture! 

Find the copper tablet box,
open its lock of bronze,
undo the fastening of its secret opening.
Take and read out from the lapis lazuli tablet
how Gilgamesh went through every hardship.

Supreme over other kings, lordly in appearance,
he is the hero, born of Uruk, the goring wild bull.
He walks out in front, the leader,
and walks at the rear, trusted by his companions.
Mighty net, protector of his people,
raging flood-wave who destroys even walls of stone!
Offspring of Lugalbanda, Gilgamesh is strong to perfection,
son of the august cow, Rimat-Ninsun;... Gilgamesh is awesome to perfection.
It was he who opened the mountain passes,
who dug wells on the flank of the mountain.
It was he who crossed the ocean, the vast seas, to the rising sun,
who explored the world regions, seeking life.


Regards,

Whoa! Gilgamesh! 5th king of Urrk. Akkadian or Babylonian edition? All 12 tablets (the "conventionaly wisdom says the 12th is really only a summary) or only just the first 11.
Quadz, you rock. I love it...

QD

[quadz]

this explains how i feel pretty well. and why i would bet on what he has to say.
it seems aside from faith, there is some science behind why there is a god.

[quadz]

http://www.gradresources.org/worldview_articles/evidence_for_god.shtml

And another nitpick:

[reaper]

hi buckwheat,
i believe the intention of what he was writing was an argument , on how to proove god's existance.  not that to believe in a god you would have to justify his existance to begin with.  or that it is without reason to believe in a god

f god created the Universe, who created God?

Why is it somehow OK to say, oh, nobody created God, god existed forever?  Might as well say the Universe existed forever.  I ask again: What's the difference?

that would be the first thought that comes to mine isn't it.  i belive his intent was to say, it's easier to believe something came from nothing outside the possibilties of our universe. 
if the theories you posted about earlier are different, i'm sure there would be a simliar argument, as to why a god is needed. maybe not, i don't  believe that's acceptected populary right now though, and if it is, i bet you could make the same argument as to why there's likely to be a god

the objective morale reasoning doesn't seem to be an easiley defendable argument that there is a god either.  it's one of those things you draw from faith, or a best guess. i was making up a few earlier.  there all pretty much the same though.
i suppose you could go one way or the other


dahang thinks it's unreasonable to believe in a god, i consider it the most likley reality
that's what i meant as far as picking at something - i was referring to dahang
he can say, well
these are just irrational answers that fit in to what science doesn't show. 
here are some well put together arguments as to god's existance, and believing in the big bang to me is no more reasonable. than believing in the arguments put forth by that guy greg.

but nitpick all you want, you won't offend me
and the article goes on to try and "prove" an existance in god. i don't think people are always trying to fill in the gaps, i think a lot of people have  been believing in god a long time

i think i(and that link) put forth many reasonable arguments as to why there is likely a god, of course, you either believe the arguments or you don't.   
i'll i'm saying is, i'd put my money on them.

[reaper]

Huh???

[metaL]

i didnt read a single post in this thread 

[quadz]

here are some well put together arguments as to god's existance, and believing in the big bang to me is no more reasonable. than believing in the arguments put forth by that guy greg.

Are you suggesting the choice is between believing in God OR believing in the Big Bang?

Isn't this the same choice that used to be offered, when it was: believe in God OR believe the earth orbits the sun?

(As a side note, a scientist doesn't "believe" in the Big Bang, but rather observes that the evidence suggests the Big Bang is likely to have occurred.)


Regards,

:buckwheat:

[quadz]

it still wouldn't answer the question of something from nothing, where god fits in.

No!!!!!  God does not "fit in" there!!!!!   

If you say God always existed, then you beg the question of something from nothing!!!!

You can't conveniently answer the question of something from nothing, by saying, Oh, God always existed.

That is no different from saying, actually, God didn't always exist.  God was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster always existed!  It doesn't answer the question, it just pushes it off to a meta level and pretends that somehow answers the question of something from nothing... which it doesn't.


Regards,