Let us assume, for the sake of arguement, that there is no God. In his place, there is a flock of invisable pink unicorns. And in the dawn of time, the unicorns wanted something to play with, so they made a man, and from his rib, a woman. And they all played in a paradise, and all was well.

Then the man got presumptuous, and rode one of the unicorns. This unicorn turned back with rage, and cursed the man, and all of his descendents. Man and Woman turned their backs on the unicorns, and the black unicorn worked tirelessly to obscure the truth. Meanwhile, the rest of the unicorns became weak through lack of play. The black unicorn devised false playmates, Jehova, Shiva, Odin, Allah, Maui, Horus, Amatarasu, Yaweh.

And with every human he tricked into believing the rest grew weaker still. But so clever was the black unicorn, that he created false false gods. Loki, Satan and others. And humans saw through the deception of the of these Gods, and turned instead to those with only one level of deceit.

The point is that the claim that Satan created the dinosaurs is bullshit. I can make up a rediculous claim as well, and neither has any basis. If "proof" that the world is 5 billion years old is a trick, then what is there to suggest that your holy book isn't as well?

Wow...that was...



COMPLETELY INCOHERENT.



Wanna try again ?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:



The point is that the claim that Satan created the dinosaurs is bullshit. I can make up a rediculous claim as well, and neither has any basis. If "proof" that the world is 5 billion years old is a trick, then what is there to suggest that your holy book isn't as well?

Are you trying to say that people of faith think that thier texts and beliefs are beyond refute?

If so you are right. It is pretty pointless to argue with them for any reason other than entertainment. Not many people are good enough debators to convince an adult that thier whole belief system is wrong.

The point I was tryin to make was that the arguement that Satan created the dinosaurs just to try to lure us from the truth could be equally applied to the religion itself. Maybe all of Christianity is a smokescreen, created by a being of evil to obscure the real truth. The arguement, "It's all a trick" is bullshit, because to question everything we can prove in such a matter is impossibly short-sighted as it doesn't continue the line of questioning to it's ultimate end, that being that absolutely nothing can be absolute, yes, even the Bible. And yeah, DS, it was kinda incoherant. It made alot more sense when I said it earlier today, and I kinda banged that out in five minutes, and got a little side-tracked. I'll re-do it tommorrow.

Actually, it made sense to me and I thought it was a clever story. Ludicrous, yes, but intentionally so (I'm assuming).

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

The point I was tryin to make was that the arguement that Satan created the dinosaurs just to try to lure us from the truth could be equally applied to the religion itself. Maybe all of Christianity is a smokescreen, created by a being of evil to obscure the real truth. The arguement, "It's all a trick" is bullshit, because to question everything we can prove in such a matter is impossibly short-sighted as it doesn't continue the line of questioning to it's ultimate end, that being that absolutely nothing can be absolute, yes, even the Bible. And yeah, DS, it was kinda incoherant. It made alot more sense when I said it earlier today, and I kinda banged that out in five minutes, and got a little side-tracked. I'll re-do it tommorrow.

Ok, so my question is: Who ever said those things about Lucifer ?

God created "Leviathans". Look it up in the Bible...

Job 3:8 - May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.

Job 41:1 - Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?

Psalm 74:14 - It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert.

Psalm 104:26 - There the ships go to and fro, and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

The Bible refers to many the common animals we know today. The list includes lions, wolves, bears, sheep, cattle and dogs along with various kinds of birds, rodents, reptiles, and insects. What is interesting is that this extensive list includes three animals that we no longer recognize: Tanniyn, Behemoth (yes, it’s spelled correctly—at least as close as I can get in Roman characters), and Livyathan.

Tanniyn is always translated into another word when written in English. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.”

Behemoth and Leviathan are relatively specific creatures, perhaps each was a single kind of animal. Tanniyn is a more general term, and it can be thought of as the original version of the word “dinosaur.”

The word “dinosaur” was originally coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to “Tanniyn.”

Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24 -

- It “eats grass like an ox.”

- It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)

- Its “bones are like beams of bronze,

His ribs like bars of iron.”

- “He is the first of the ways of God.” ( This phrase in the original Hebrew implied that behemoth was the biggest animal created )

- “He lies under the lotus trees,

In a covert of reeds and marsh.”

Leviathan has the following attributes according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1.

- “No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”

- “Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?”

- “His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.”

- “His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”

- “Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.”

- “ On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.”

- Leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26 — get the exact sense by reading them yourself).

- Leviathan is a “reptile [1] that is in the sea.” (Isaiah 27:1)

Note: The word translated “reptile” here is the Hebrew word Tanniyn. This shows that “Leviathan” was also a “tanniyn” (dragon).

So, anyway....I hope that cleared that fallacy up...SATAN created NOTHING.

God created everything. Satan just manipulates God's creation in a futile attempt to make God look stupid.

*laughs*

Incoherence is ok, as long as you expound.

I couldn't really follow you, so I couldn't really answer.

Fair enough, but how do you explain the results of carbon dating? Or microwave background count that pretty much every physicist on the planet has accepted has evidence of the big bang?

If you really want me to explain the microwave thing, I can, but it'll be a long ass post that'll take days to type, especially if you have no training in physics.

quote:Originally posted by Lolita:

Actually, it made sense to me and I thought it was a clever story. Ludicrous, yes, but intentionally so (I'm assuming).

It was supposed to be ludicrous. I was trying to emulate the feeling an atheist gets when a Christian says carbon-dating is a trick of the devil.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Wow...that was...



COMPLETELY INCOHERENT.



Wanna try again ?

Well I liked it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

I think Digital handled this as well as i could've.

I don't deny the big bang. I believe god started the big bang.

And i certainly don't deny dinosaurs, but digital handled that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

[B]Jehova, Shiva, Odin, Allah, Maui, Horus, Amatarasu, Yaweh.

]

Yaweh and Jehova are the same God.

and at the very top levals of Phyics they regect the big bang and evouloution.

[This message has been edited by ShotgunSuicide (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by ShotgunSuicide:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

[B]Jehova, Shiva, Odin, Allah, Maui, Horus, Amatarasu, Yaweh.

]

Yaweh and Jehova are the same God.

and at the very top levals of Phyics they regect the big bang and evouloution.

[This message has been edited by ShotgunSuicide (edited 10-08-2004).]

Yahweh, Jehova and Allah are the same God. It's just the different names each religion uses for them. But I admit to not being certain that Yahweh is the Jewish word, and Jehova the Christian.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Wow...that was...



COMPLETELY INCOHERENT.



Wanna try again ?

Right on. I quit when I got to the pink unicorns--saw enough of THAT shit while I was drinking. . . .

I think it's unfair to say that "Christians" reject all science, the Big Bang, evolution, etc. Many Christians have been creative enough to reconcile their religion with scientific discoveries and developments.

Christ, even the Catholic Church doesn't reject evolution.

I was going topost this ina new thread, but after realizing it is the same strain of logic as this one, I decided to refrain my urge to ahve threads in my name for a post in the proper area.

Imagine, if you will, that the world is simply going along as it is with no real godhood in it. Created through scientific random chance, the world simply is and will eventually end. The people are aware of this eventual end through the means of science and the assumed-eventual mastery of the chaos theory that man has been working on (both in this world and in the example) since the discovery of pi. Seeing the end, they devise a plan to save themselves. A man (or woman or even a dog for that matter, it truly does not matter) ascends to godhood through scientific discovery. Any existentialist has read the papers by Nietzche (I slaughtered his name) and Kant that describe this process, so I won't go into further detail but leave that part up to you, the reader. With this godhood, one is assumed to attain omnipotency, omniscience and omnipresence, so we shall give these attributes to our new god. One would also imagine that a god would be able to travel freely through time, both before and after it's beginning, as there would be restrictions upon him, so let's give these attributes to the assumed-one as well. This god goes back in time and recreates the universe, compeltely undoing what had been done before. Being a god as he is, he is able to survive this whilst everything else perishes in the creation of this new world. He acts as the god of this new world just as a religion would transcribe.

That story served two purposes. One, in very loose terms, it describes how divinity can come from every; understanding how requires the reading of the rwo existentialist philosophers I named. The main meaning however was to point out the possible circumstances of an extra-dimensional being. Look at the god's characteristics. The time travel, the Omnipresence, these are all qualities a 5D creature would have if they were on a 4D plane as defined by quantum physics, jsut as we would still retain our affinity with time if we crossed into a 3D world, giving us a large amount of god-like customization of their world. Essentially, one could define a god as any of the theorized number of extra-dimensional beings that somehow became trapped in this dimension, much like the various Twilight Zone, Outer Limits and Star Trek episodes to the same effect with large people and small people. While I don't view thigns this way, it is an interesting exercise.

quote:Originally posted by ShotgunSuicide:

the very top levals of Phyics they regect the big bang and evouloution.

[This message has been edited by ShotgunSuicide (edited 10-08-2004).][/B]

Umm... would you mind either providing a source that doesn't also tell me how I can accept Christ as my savior, OR take it over to Mad Scientists so some real Physicists can flame the shit out of you.

quote:Originally posted by Lolita:



Christ, even the Catholic Church doesn't reject evolution.





Do they think it happens in 6,000 years, like some x-tians?

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

I think Digital handled this as well as i could've.

I don't deny the big bang. I believe god started the big bang.

<A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif">http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif" width="90" height="90)</A>

Did anyone else notice how this scenario is pretty good at showing that there is no god and all religions are wrong? I think it works

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

&lt;A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif"&gt; <A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif">http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif" width="90" height="90)</A> &lt;/A&gt;



That is so fucking cool!

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:



Do they think it happens in 6,000 years, like some x-tians?



I'm tempted to say no but, to be truthful, I don't know.

While they are ultra-conservative on social issues, the Vatican usually takes a more open-minded attitude with science. *Now*, anyway. (Bear in mind that "open-minded" is a relative term that I use in comparison to literal creationists.)

Wow, what a completely unproductive area of discussion. How is this intellectual excercise, SurahAhriman?

And Gorloche, interesting post, but I think you may have misunderstood some of Nietzsche's and Kant's work. I'm not certain though, I could just be misunderstanding your point. You are referring to Nietzsche's ubermencsh(now it is my turn to slaughter spelling), correct?

Lets sing:

quote:

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar

Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume

Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine

Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.



*There's nothing Neitszche couldn't teach ya

'Bout the raising of the wrist,

Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.



*John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,

On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away,

Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,

Hobbes was fond of his dram.

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart,

"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,

A lovely little thinker,

But a bugger when he's pissed...."

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Lets sing:



"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar

Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume

Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine

Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.



*There's nothing Neitszche couldn't teach ya

'Bout the raising of the wrist,

Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.



*John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,

On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away,

Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,

Hobbes was fond of his dram.

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart,

"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,

A lovely little thinker,

But a bugger when he's pissed...."





That was absolutely beautiful. Thank you. Does it go to some well known melody? Cause that might become my new pub drinking song.

lol... its from a monty python skit. They do it on "Live from the hollywood bowl" I think.

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

Wow, what a completely unproductive area of discussion. How is this intellectual excercise, SurahAhriman?



It's an intellectual exercise in that I was asking theists, specifically creationists, to step into a different mental pattern than they normally do. Did you read anything beyond the initial post? I awknowledged that it was fairly incoherant, though I think I got the general idea right, then made a second post explicating it.

What boggles my mind is how some Christians believe that their own God created the Universe to appear 14.5 billion years old, yet also believe that God is completely honest in all his works. I find it contradictory that God tests our faith with a trick that defies our comprehension of the Universe, whilst being completely honest.

I find it equally insane to believe that Lucifer (God's gifted angel) is decieving us all. Also, equally rediculous to ignore the scientific process with backed evidence on the basis of a book written to the understandings of people who (for the most part) thought Earth was flat, disagrees with science, while it is backed by not a shred of evidence.

Then again, I am rather incapable of putting faith into religous beliefs, so I guess those who are can believe whatever the hell they wish too.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

fer on the basis of a book written to the understandings of people who (for the most part) thought Earth was flat, disagrees with science, while it is backed by not a shred of evidence.

.



So we ignore evryones findings before they found the world was round...

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

It's an intellectual exercise in that I was asking theists, specifically creationists, to step into a different mental pattern than they normally do. Did you read anything beyond the initial post? I awknowledged that it was fairly incoherant, though I think I got the general idea right, then made a second post explicating it.

I read the post, and for the most part it was just silly.

I think "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" did a much better job of doing what I believe your point to be.

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

I read the post, and for the most part it was just silly.

I think "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" did a much better job of doing what I believe your point to be.

What exactly was "Thus...", and where might I be able to read it?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

What exactly was "Thus...", and where might I be able to read it?

It's a book written by Nietzsche. It's a philosophy book in novel form, pretty kick ass. Should be pretty easy to find as Nietzsche is becoming the easiest philosopher to find. He is, after all, the man who millions have quoted.

"God is dead."

Be careful, it's easy to misunderstand his message. It is a positive one, trust me.

Long time, no see, Ahriman.

This argument is not only too long-winded and abstract to apply to such a simple and selective topic, but it's also ultimately irrelevant to the function of religion, only succeeding in nitpicking with the religious politics of the day.

You're also (curiously) going from a Christian perspective to show how older, more arcane gods were created from the Semitic god. This angers me as a pagan, and I hope you'll find it in your heart to remedy this grave mistake. =P

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

You're also (curiously) going from a Christian perspective to show how older, more arcane gods were created from the Semitic god. This angers me as a pagan, and I hope you'll find it in your heart to remedy this grave mistake. =P

My appologies. That wasn't my intent at all. Actually, I'm kinda regretting posting this. I wrote it with half a mind a few minutes before I had to leave to catch a bus home for the weekend, and that resulted in this being poorly written and executed, and it seems like it's sending off all kinds of wrong impressions.

Plus anytime Digital_Savior gets to call me incoherant stings my internet heart.