People who believe in god are broken

[questionposter]

OK. I'll bite.

Do you how much time that would take?

 

In an infinitely large universe that possibly didn't have a real beginning or end, it doesn't really matter. Though based on our knowledge, I would say it takes 13.7 billion years if that is in fact about how long ago the matter we see around us was created.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[iNow]

The universe exits. It exists with billions of galaxies in it with billions of solar systems and untold number of planets. Stars had to go supernova billions of years ago for the elements that created you to exist. You just so happen to live on one planet that is perfectly tuned for life. And you are part of a species that has evolved to a level to put satellites into orbit and create satellite broadcasts.

 

And you are looking for miracles?

 

 

 

Here's the full quote:

 

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.’”

[DrDNA]

In an infinitely large universe that possibly didn't have a real beginning or end, it doesn't really matter. Though based on our knowledge, I would say it takes 13.7 billion years if that is in fact about how long ago the matter we see around us was created.

LOL. You are just going by the existing evidence. I mean by calculation?

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[iNow]

Do you have any evidence that suggests that the universe if infinitely large?

Since when did you need evidence to believe something? Aren't you the one who accepts a mythological proposition as true based upon a book of fictions written in the desert two thousand years ago during the bronze age? Double standard, maybe?

[questionposter]

LOL. You are just going by the existing evidence. I mean by calculation?

 

Astronomers cannot observe a boundary to the universe and therefore have no choice but to scientifically accept it as not having a boundary until proven otherwise.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

 

Here's the full quote:

 

 

I'm familiar with it, of course. But it doesn't change anything.

It is less elegant than saying 'my girlfriend is perfect for me, she must have been made just for me'.

Either way, they are both irrelevant.

The chances of the mud puddle even existing are off the charts. The chances of the girlfriend existing....for you....zero.

[iNow]

As I've now requested of you on at least three separate occasions, perhaps you can please cease from making personal comments.

[DrDNA]

As I've now requested of you on at least three separate occasions, perhaps you can please cease from making personal comments.

But you admitted to baiting.

[iNow]

But you admitted to baiting.

Actually, no. You asserted it many times, though. Perhaps that is what you meant?

 

I wonder if one member can be locked from a thread... Is that possible? Again, I'd rather not give him such power, and reward DrDNAs behavior by closing the whole discussion.

[tar]

Supernatural I think means "above" nature, as in something supernatural doesn't follow evolution or can't be explained by our current knowledge or doesn't have normal things that you would often find in nature, and faith in god isn't illogical, there's just not a lot of actual evidence to support the existence of god.

For instance, lightning was considered super-natural before people started seeing patterns in it and eventually discovered it was plasma. But, I don't think we will be able to ever conclude any discoveries about god.

 

Questionposter,

 

I suppose that might be a very good discription of God for me at least. "That which we make up about the nature of the Cosmos, before we actually have the facts, or if we can't reach the facts, and have to imagine them having to exist anyway, THAT which we imagine in that case."

 

Regards, TAR2

[tar]

So, what existed before the Big Bang?

 

 

DrDNA,

 

I don't have the reach to answer that, for sure. Just stuff I made up for myself. I would imagine that whatever situation is required to cause a universe, was what existed before the Big Bang. My guess is that it was the last moments of the prior universe. One we can never experience because it no longer exists, and we could only possibly know of it, by any signiture or messages it may have left to this universe. In anycase, its WAY too long ago, and WAY to Huge to have much bearing on me at the present here and now. This is the one that matters most to me. What the universe is doing here. What the universe is doing now.

 

Regards, TAR2

[tar]

That was the reason for the nomination.

 

 

Why? Some of them are defective.

 

doG,

 

No, you are right. It is good to throw out the defective stuff. But its also good to hold on to the good stuff, even if it is based on nothing more than mutual agreement. I say this, because I do not believe I can be any more or any less than human, and I gladly identify with Inow, and you, and Moontanman, and Phi For All, and Question Poster and all the others on this thread that "believe" in the reliable nature of the universe, and the "trust" we have in each other to be the best witnesses to turn to to determine the "truth" about it.

 

Just like to stay consistent, as Inow might demand, and call a human a human. And where I see a "limitation" that I have as a human, I assume that "human" thing might well limit others in a similar manner. I therefore, when I see someone expressing a thought that I recognize as "supernatural" in nature, I doubt that it is "really" possible for the person to know this thing, and figure they must be talking from that "god" perspective that we all believe we can take.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

DrDNA,

 

You are getting a bit "know-it-all"ish. Based on your own private understanding, of a book written by men, and edited by the "council of Trent". You are not allowed to claim the "God" perspective and expect it to mean anything to anybody here, that has already moved onto a "higher" level of collective consciousness than that. Everybody here, already knows these stories you talk about, and are more interested in learning more about the "real" creator, than a two thousand year old document can offer.

 

At least that is my take.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

and the Bible is pretty boring reading for a non-believer. I tried to read it, after I read the Koran twice, following Sept.11th, when I was trying to understand how such evil had come from a "religion of peace", but it was too boring, I couldn't read it through.

 

The first half of the Koran is at least interesting. I think Mohammed dictated that part. He was a good writer. And a persuasive thinker. The second half is mostly repitition and strikes me as a different style. I think the scribes wrote most of that themselves. Or Mohammed was suffering from writer's block.

[DrDNA]

-

DrDNA,

 

You are getting a bit "know-it-all"ish. Based on your own private understanding, of a book written by men, and edited by the "council of Trent". You are not allowed to claim the "God" perspective and expect it to mean anything to anybody here, that has already moved onto a "higher" level of collective consciousness than that. Everybody here, already knows these stories you talk about, and are more interested in learning more about the "real" creator, than a two thousand year old document can offer.

 

At least that is my take.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

The issue here, as I understand it, is about people who believe in God being broken.

Not some delusional higher collective

I disagree that only those who believe in God are broken.

My stance is simply that we are ALL broken.

Anything other than that, in my opinion, is arrogant, elitist and religion bashing. Which is rampant here.

 

Well just for the start, please visit this link:

 

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html

Interesting site. And no doubt God did kill a lot of people, but I don't necessarily see the sin in it.

Did the allies sin when they killed a bunch of Nazis?

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[CaptainPanic]

I'm familiar with it, of course. But it doesn't change anything.

It is less elegant than saying 'my girlfriend is perfect for me, she must have been made just for me'.

Either way, they are both irrelevant.

The chances of the mud puddle even existing are off the charts. The chances of the girlfriend existing....for you....zero.

!

Moderator Note

DrDNA,

Please keep this discussion polite. I know it's a clash between different schools of thought, which might make a discussion a frustrating thing to do.

 

Still, your only two options are: patient and polite posts, or no post at all. Please think of this mod note before pressing the "post" button.

 

Do not reply to this mod note.

[doG]

I disagree that only those who believe in God are broken.

Could you please point out where that claim was made? Looking back through the thread I don't see where the claim was made that you are alleging to disagree with.

[Airbrush]

According to Genesis, man was made in an "unbroken" state.

Then came the fall and as a consequence, we all became broken.

 

And iNow is correct as well.

People who believe in GOD are broken.

He just left out (accidentally, probably) the point that people that don't believe in GOD are broken as well.

 

People are not "broken" they are imperfect. Broken is a serious exaggeration. All creatures are imperfect. Broken is not the word.

[doG]

People are not "broken" they are imperfect. Broken is a serious exaggeration. All creatures are imperfect. Broken is not the word.

You should tell that to the people over at www.brokenpeople.org...

[Airbrush]

If all people are "broken" then how did the human population grow so successfully? People are functional enough to dominate the Earth.

 

After the eruption of the supervolcano Toba 72,000 years ago, the human race was decimated, and yet these "broken" people came back with a vengence.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Airbrush

[DrDNA]

Could you please point out where that claim was made? Looking back through the thread I don't see where the claim was made that you are alleging to disagree with.

 

? The claim that "people that believe in God are broken"?

 

Please clarify.

 

What idiot gave them free will, knowing that they would do that sort of thing?

 

God can't abdicate responsibility that way any more than I can shoot someone then say "it wasn't me that killed him: it was the bullet".

He can't? Why can't he?

Anyway, bullets do not have free will.

 

People are not "broken" they are imperfect. Broken is a serious exaggeration. All creatures are imperfect. Broken is not the word.

I think that iNow was actually correct in his choice for terminology. I (perhaps incorrectly) see broken as a metaphor for fallen.

 

If all people are "broken" then how did the human population grow so successfully? People are functional enough to dominate the Earth.

 

After the eruption of the supervolcano Toba 72,000 years ago, the human race was decimated, and yet these "broken" people came back with a vengence.

There used to be a three legged cat that lived in our barn and ate mice. Nicest cat i ever saw. I don't where she came from. I think she just moved in. Having only 3 legs, she was definitely "broken". She couldn't get away from the 'unbroken' male cats and maybe she went in heat more than most cats. I don't know for sure but it sure seemed like she was always pregnant. And she had literally hundreds of descendants over the course of 5-6 years.

 

My point is, as long as the right parts are working, I don't think that being broken impedes the ability to reproduce.

 

And we have the Jerry Springer show.......

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[DrDNA]

You don't "have" to if you don't want to, and who's to say there isn't another way anyway?

maybe I don't "have to", but if it came down to a decision between some really "broken" dude seriously harming any child, my wife or a loved one, or me shooting the "broken" dude in the face, I'm gonna shoot the broken dude in the face all day, every day.

 

I take that back. I do "have to".

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[doG]

? The claim that "people that believe in God are broken"?

 

Please clarify.

Hmmmm. Editted your post huh? You said that you disagreed that 'all' people were broken and no one made that claim.

[questionposter]

maybe I don't "have to", but if it came down to a decision between some really "broken" dude seriously harming any child, my wife or a loved one, or me shooting the "broken" dude in the face, I'm gonna shoot the broken dude in the face all day, every day.

 

 

Couldn't you just shoot the guy in the leg or call the police and merely threaten him?

[tar]

DrDNA,

 

I voiced my "collective consciousness" delusion for a number of important reasons, in reference to this thread.

 

Number one, I theorize that much of our "progress" as a race has to do with our strong desire to be "right" in the eyes of a "higher" authority. Call it your dad, or your mom, or your boss, or your mate, or your work buddies, or your president, or your priest, or your teacher, or the leaders of your political party, or science club, or in your case, God, it still may very well have some of the same roots in terms of how we are put together.

 

How else would a "society" progress, and work together, if each individual did not hold some sort of "idea" of the group as a single entity? Sure it is delusional to think I know what is in the mind of other people, or thousands of other people, or a million, or a billion. And chances are, I am WAY off base in the mindset I attribute to others...but, in some ways, it is absolutely true. There is an "identity" thing, that is not limited to your own personal model of the world, but includes the models of the world that are reported to you, by people you trust. Your wife comes home and says the Motel on Rt. 23 near the breakfast place got torn down, you immediately adjust your model of the world accordingly. As a result, there are many real things that exist in both your model of the world and your wife's, concurrently, and giving some credit of consciousness to other people, it is not complete delusion to include yourself in a collective, that has amassed the findings of everybody into a collectively held model of the world.

 

We do tend to share stuff with those around us. Rules, laws, common experience of the weather, the economy, news stories from around the world...especially with the internet, and Wiki, and the science forum, and facebook and twitter, added to the historically "one sided" media, that had just tellers and listeners.

 

My admonishment of your particular delusion, of "still" maintaining a 2000 year old model of collective consciouness, and my admission to holding an albeit delusional, but at least updated version of the same human/world/universe condition, was meant to both prove that God exists, and that we still believe in it. Both in our private delusions, and in our collective embrace of it. Be it an Atheist or a born again Christian that is doing the embracing.

 

Just to notice, that when looked at, with my particular skew, scientists are actually MORE likely to "please" God by just listening to his words, than religous people are likely to please him by putting 2000 year old words in his mouth.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Question poster,

 

Can we, for the discussion, specify that we are talking about not killing other people, when we are talking about knowing it is wrong to kill? (if one is not broken)

 

Just worried that otherwise, we may all have to sin continually just to eat. It is hard to eat something without killing it. Or at least making it suffer some.

 

(Reminds of the three legged pig joke. After describing the amazing traits of the pig (like the time the pig dragged the unconscious owner from a burning building and such), and asked by the listener for the story of how the pig lost its leg, the owner replies "a pig like that, you don't eat all at one time.")

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 4, 2012 by tar

[questionposter]

 

Question poster,

 

Can we, for the discussion, specify that we are talking about not killing other people, when we are talking about knowing it is wrong to kill? (if one is not broken)

 

Just worried that otherwise, we may all have to sin continually just to eat. It is hard to eat something without killing it. Or at least making it suffer some.

 

(Reminds of the three legged pig joke. After describing the amazing traits of the pig (like the time the pig dragged the unconscious owner from a burning building and such), and asked by the listener for the story of how the pig lost its leg, the owner replies "a pig like that, you don't eat all at one time.")

 

Regards, TAR2

It isn't a sign of brokenness, but it isn't a sign of perfection. There are ways to get energy other than killing something, but it will take more effort so it is not as efficient, which is why nature hasn't evolved around it, since nature naturally does the most efficient thing.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I've split a number of posts from the thread into a new one as they were off-topic.

Could you please stop veering off topic and stick to the OP.