• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Do people still believe in Hell?

Spot, tolerance and accepting people think differently than you is a good thing. It is part of what makes the world go around. You cannot presume to refute me in point by point fashion into making a case against what I believe. It is just what it is and as such is good enough for me. Calling me ridiculous when I was trying to lighten the mood is almost .. mean.

I have not attempted to refute your beliefs.

I have pointed out your beliefs are not in opposition to the scientific method, that the conflict exists only in your head. I have re iterated the distinction on numerous occasions and you keep on giving knee jerk reactions to a non existent attack on your faith. That is ignorant.

You have on numerous occasions demonstrated with your posts that you haven't even bothered to fully read the comments you are replying to, on at least one occasion seemingly confusing two different people. That is rude.

You have then trivialised the suffering of victims of religious intolerance by equating their suffering with this thread. That is manipulative and disrespctful.

Then trying to "lighten the mood" with a statement which was indistinguishable as a joke given how similarly histrionic much of your previous posts were is exactly what I called it. Ridiculous.
 
Oh dear.

I think I shall go. I repeat I apologize if I offended. Not for my beliefs but if they offended.
 
While I always dismiss organized religion as having the right answers, simply because I think it seems clear that it was written by primitive humans, simply by how primitive they make God out to be. They take the concept of being of with powers we can't even conceive and make him into human being with super powers. God can do all these amazing things but somehow God still feels typical human emotion and thinks things like worship is important. He thinks it's so important he is even willing to torture and kill people who don't to do that. That is the actions of dictator more than a God.

What makes me think God is possible is the idea of what existed before the universe was created and the concept of infinity. I just don't see how infinity can be explained way with just the normal rules of how we can judge how the universe has been created and how it works because it's a bigger and even more complex idea than even that.
I have always found it intresting that some see the concept of infinity and except it as a natural concept to believe in but then think the concept of a God is silly and stupid even though they are basically the same idea with only the God version having the idea that their is intelligence behind the concept. Infinity is basically something with no begining and no ending and it is everywhere. How is that all that different from how we describe a God? I think the fact that religion has made God seem unrealistic has a bigger impact on how people look at the concept than the concept itself has done.
The bigger issue to me is a afterlife because even though I see some logic in their maybe being a God I don't see the purpose of a afterlife. Humans aren't built for that kind of existence and if you altered us to live like that we would stop being who we are.
One other thing I would like to add is that when we try and figure out how a God would think I wish we would try and think of God less like a human but more like a super intelligent and sentient computer. God might be self aware and have imense knowledge but it would perceive that knowledge in ways we can't imagine because we as humans can't think like a computer would think. I think it's even possible that a God wouldn't even have emotions.

Jason
 
I don't get how someone can believe in a black hole or a scientific theory that is provable by what.. seeing it? Oh yeah by an equation. Give me proof I say, I want to see these things before I believe them. Not some bunch of numbers. Science likes to have faith in joining the dots, by the intangible.
When a black hole is absorbing matter from a companion star, the matter falling into it becomes superheated and releases x-rays which are visible to x-ray telescopes like so:



That looks dodgy to me.. but I am sure labelling it makes it legit.
That's about the kind of lazy and dismissive response that I expected given the willful ignorance of your original post. You demanded visual evidence of the existence of black holes instead of just "equations," so I indulged you with a pic showing the effect a black hole has on the matter around it in the x-ray spectrum. This is just one of many observable and demonstrable qualities of black holes which confirm their existence, along with plenty of your dreaded equations describing their behavior and how it would affect the surrounding space.

A less lazy and willfully ignorant person who was actually interested in broadening their horizons and learning more would take the example I provided and go look for more evidence themselves on the single greatest research tool ever created (the internet, you know, the thing you mock below) because they'd think it's neat to learn something new, but you're so invested in discrediting the idea of science itself like a sworn enemy of religion that all you can do is defensively make a stupid dismissive comment suggesting it's a fake picture or labelled wrong. You didn't even try to mount a rebuttal, not that one is even necessary since I'm not trying to discredit your religious beliefs in any way, merely pointing out that there are ways to confirm the existence of black holes beyond just having faith that they're out there.

Actually I just simply don't agree with you. I don't believe science is smugly and always measurable and that religion is all in one's head as a concept. Much of science is theory.

And I WAS being serious. Someone shows me a pretty picture and I'm supposed to believe it? So if I show you a picture of a Jesus with a label that wouldn't be silly?
You clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is. It's not the same thing as having faith.

Of course if you were to show me a picture of Jesus I would consider it silly since photography didn't exist back then. :p But, if you were to show me verifiable, peer-reviewed archeological evidence supporting the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth I would absolutely take that seriously, as would scientists and historians in the field, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

Okay.. do you want me to say the Internet is God? Fat chance, lol! Just want to say I have a sense of humor before I get banned for being religious and irreverent.
:rolleyes: Christ, climb down from your cross. You've suffered enough for our sins.

No one's going to ban you for being religious. I can't believe all these conservatives have the nerve to whine about safe spaces and victim mentality.
 
You were making a point about doubt and facts within a certain sphere of society(Law and the courts), I was making a point about general epistemology and reality as we know it.
Um, no. I was making the point that sometimes we see "reality as we know it" inaccurately, and I chose an example that just happened to come from the criminal justice system. 'Bye.
 
Last I checked, the Shroud was a hoax.
I think the evidence so far has been inconclusive.
Vatican authorized radiocarbon dating from three separate international universities conducted in the late-80s placed the age somewhere between the years 1260 and 1390 with a 95% degree of accuracy, which is consistent with the first time it was recorded to have been exhibited, which was in Lirey, France in 1353-1357, though there is only one reference to this location. There have been challenges to the carbon dating results (but not based on new carbon testing or other reliable methods), but none have held up to serious scrutiny.
 
Vatican authorized radiocarbon dating from three separate international universities conducted in the late-80s placed the age somewhere between the years 1260 and 1390 with a 95% degree of accuracy, which is consistent with the first time it was recorded to have been exhibited, which was in Lirey, France in 1353-1357, though there is only one reference to this location. There have been challenges to the carbon dating results (but not based on new carbon testing or other reliable methods), but none have held up to serious scrutiny.

Hmm. I just gave a quick read through the wikipedia article. It talked about the 80's results but seemed to indicate that there hasn't been further testing. The shroud is very fascinating though some of the things I find odd about it are: That this image's face looks more like a painting than an Jewish man. Why is the hair like that? And how did a dead man's arms conveniently stay propped up like that to cover his "naughty bits."
 
Hmm. I just gave a quick read through the wikipedia article. It talked about the 80's results but seemed to indicate that there hasn't been further testing. The shroud is very fascinating though some of the things I find odd about it are: That this image's face looks more like a painting than an Jewish man. Why is the hair like that? And how did a dead man's arms conveniently stay propped up like that to cover his "naughty bits."
Because it's fake. He looks exactly like most depictions of him from the Middle Ages, namely white.
 
Hmm. I just gave a quick read through the wikipedia article. It talked about the 80's results but seemed to indicate that there hasn't been further testing.
There have been several other tests of the shroud and materials on the shroud, just not radiocarbon dating since the original tests were conducted in 1988.
 
I've seen experiments where they recreated it just by painting on similar fabric, the results were identical.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top