dude, faith is another word for ignorance. Morality is down to cultural conditions and generally a personal affair, yes religion tries to teach morals but from a barbaric age, what I am getting at is a simple fact. Either it is true or it is not, if it is true there is no interpretation. It is either the word of god or it is not and if it is not then it has no reason to be an example of morality in a modern society. We are not talking about an interpretation of morality of religion, we are talking about religion and I stick by what I have said not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact. Just because you cannot disprove them does not mean you should be allowing the corruption of society from the barbaric ramblings of extremely underdeveloped individuals from hundreds and even thousands of years ago, you may as well be going back in time and asking a random passer by how to fix your computer because they have as much expertise on that as they do about the nature of the universe, and please before continuing know that I have A levels in religion as well as chemistry, biology, physics and philosophy and am working toward a doctorate in neuro biology, I am not just pulling opinions out of my ass here. (that was not a jab at you FYI just a figure of speech)

Are you saying either religion is true or it isn't?
I know that much. But interpretations of the Bible exist because people don't know for sure what the correct interpretation is. You can't know for sure, really. I'd argue that everybody has faith, but that's a debate for another time.
www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-both-atheists-believers-need-to-stop-saying/
www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html

You'd benefit from reading those articles.

it is not interpretation... it is the word of god, that is not down to interpretation and if it is not the word of god then it is just the musings of some ancient people in which case it is obviously not real... can you really not get past that simple premise?

how many times do I have to say, this is not about interpretation, religions are set out in their texts as the word of that deity, that is simply not up for interpretation, and if it is then it is not from that deity, and if it is not from that deity then it is from man and well, you ever heard the saying don't believe everything you read, especially the delusional scribblings of man from hundreds of years ago who cannot understand a simple concept as lightening without having to explain it as magic... seriously man, I am not counting buddhism or any of the self advancement through internal study, those are nothing but good as they promote knowledge and the betterment of ones self rather than some mumbo jumbo from some flea ridden nutbag.

Actually, much of the Bible in the Catholic church, and perhaps others, is the inspired word of God, not his words exactly. That's why it is so open to interpretation, first by our clergy and now by our congregation as well.


You might be thinking of Islam, in which their holy texts are actually the words of God hand written by the illiterate Mohammed. That's why the Qur'an is never translated: any translation would not be the same as the original divine text.


So aspects of the Bible not happening does in no way debunk the beliefs of Christianity. The parables of Jesus, and the stories of the Old Testament are often used to teach a moral lesson. Much as iamphoenix was trying to point out.


*shrug* A simple misunderstanding.

ya know what, my last point was REAALY vague and shittly put, I think I am gonna call my side for now, I had a long day at work and it is nearing 1 am, my brain has decided to opt out at this point so it would be pointless on all of our parts if I carried on, I would however like to continue this at a later date if you guys are up for that, I am always up for a good debate with respectful chaps such as yourselves, gonna thumb you gents up just for your respectful approach on the subject as it is a rare occurance on here.

you may be right it is pretty late here my apologies on that one... howeever it is also _inspired__by or should I say plagiarized from over 18 predating religions which kinda nullifies the premise in itself.

I'm not saying it's down to interpretation. I agree with you that there is only one correct interpretation. There can be only one, but there's no objective reference for the will of God so people don't know what it is.

oh for fucks sake I typed up a large response and accidently backed up a page... ok trying that again.... First off sorry I thought that is the route you were headed with the constant reference to interpretation, now i understand where you are coming from but if you are going down that route how about looking at the 18+ religions christianity plagiarized from, maybe one of those could offer an answer... there is no point at looking for an interpretation of a man made religion when we can be focusing on finding out far more by discarding it. Let us say there is a god, now if god is all loving as MOST religions claim) and if this god teaches morality for the purpose of getting along universally then would it not be favorable for such an intellectually advanced being to see us strive together without religion than fighting with one another over whos interpretation of a being (who has no influence on our lives further than the fact we argue about it) is right? Sorry if that was a shitty answer, I am running out of steam at this point and am waiting for the conversation to end so I can get stoned and watch some supernatural haha

No, it's fine. It's the internet, so I expect people to get ranty.
As far as Christianity 'plagiarizing', that might be a matter of every religion having a little bit of it right. I would like to see a day where people stop fighting over religion or faith, but I don't think that faith or religion are the real problem. I know plenty of atheists who are moral and trustworthy just like I know Christians who are selfish, arrogant bastards. This isn't to say that I think I'm better than them, mind you, but the point stands that greed and hatred have always been a driving force behind the terrible things people do. Try reading those articles I linked later on, and enjoy your Supernatural.

dude trust me I know what you mean, believe it or not I am actually an ordained pagan priest... I just like my religious debates, keeps you sharp, my beliefs stem on the basis of disregarding gods and focusing on personal and social development in order to better mankind rather than praising beings who even if they did exist would rather see us advancing peacefully than arguing over whos god is prettier.
thank you for the debate I quite enjoyed it even if it was a misinterpretation of a reitterated point, perhaps we can do this again sometime.

first off that is not what we were talking about do not be a douche
secondly since when do you NEED religion to have morality....

religion is either true or it is not that is black and white, morality has nothing to do with religion twisty mctwisterson. I understand you wish to make a point but do not sink to twisting words around to make you feel you have an upper hand, that was pretty weak dude, I am happy to debate but only if you are going to do it with at least a little thought.

Morality has plenty to do with religion. This isn't at all to say that you need religion to be moral. But, the parts that make religion a matter of interpretation are the morals and ethics involved with it. I will agree that, when it comes down to it, you're either right or wrong. Since there's no objective reference for God's will, people continue to interpret texts in various ways. It isn't black and white because we have yet to reach a point where we could with 100% certainty prove or disprove the existence of God/god/gods. That's why it's called faith.

dude, faith is another word for ignorance. Morality is down to cultural conditions and generally a personal affair, yes religion tries to teach morals but from a barbaric age, what I am getting at is a simple fact. Either it is true or it is not, if it is true there is no interpretation. It is either the word of god or it is not and if it is not then it has no reason to be an example of morality in a modern society. We are not talking about an interpretation of morality of religion, we are talking about religion and I stick by what I have said not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact. Just because you cannot disprove them does not mean you should be allowing the corruption of society from the barbaric ramblings of extremely underdeveloped individuals from hundreds and even thousands of years ago, you may as well be going back in time and asking a random passer by how to fix your computer because they have as much expertise on that as they do about the nature of the universe, and please before continuing know that I have A levels in religion as well as chemistry, biology, physics and philosophy and am working toward a doctorate in neuro biology, I am not just pulling opinions out of my ass here. (that was not a jab at you FYI just a figure of speech)

Are you saying either religion is true or it isn't?
I know that much. But interpretations of the Bible exist because people don't know for sure what the correct interpretation is. You can't know for sure, really. I'd argue that everybody has faith, but that's a debate for another time.
www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-both-atheists-believers-need-to-stop-saying/
www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html

You'd benefit from reading those articles.

it is not interpretation... it is the word of god, that is not down to interpretation and if it is not the word of god then it is just the musings of some ancient people in which case it is obviously not real... can you really not get past that simple premise?

how many times do I have to say, this is not about interpretation, religions are set out in their texts as the word of that deity, that is simply not up for interpretation, and if it is then it is not from that deity, and if it is not from that deity then it is from man and well, you ever heard the saying don't believe everything you read, especially the delusional scribblings of man from hundreds of years ago who cannot understand a simple concept as lightening without having to explain it as magic... seriously man, I am not counting buddhism or any of the self advancement through internal study, those are nothing but good as they promote knowledge and the betterment of ones self rather than some mumbo jumbo from some flea ridden nutbag.

Actually, much of the Bible in the Catholic church, and perhaps others, is the inspired word of God, not his words exactly. That's why it is so open to interpretation, first by our clergy and now by our congregation as well.


You might be thinking of Islam, in which their holy texts are actually the words of God hand written by the illiterate Mohammed. That's why the Qur'an is never translated: any translation would not be the same as the original divine text.


So aspects of the Bible not happening does in no way debunk the beliefs of Christianity. The parables of Jesus, and the stories of the Old Testament are often used to teach a moral lesson. Much as iamphoenix was trying to point out.


*shrug* A simple misunderstanding.

ya know what, my last point was REAALY vague and shittly put, I think I am gonna call my side for now, I had a long day at work and it is nearing 1 am, my brain has decided to opt out at this point so it would be pointless on all of our parts if I carried on, I would however like to continue this at a later date if you guys are up for that, I am always up for a good debate with respectful chaps such as yourselves, gonna thumb you gents up just for your respectful approach on the subject as it is a rare occurance on here.

you may be right it is pretty late here my apologies on that one... howeever it is also _inspired__by or should I say plagiarized from over 18 predating religions which kinda nullifies the premise in itself.

I'm not saying it's down to interpretation. I agree with you that there is only one correct interpretation. There can be only one, but there's no objective reference for the will of God so people don't know what it is.

oh for fucks sake I typed up a large response and accidently backed up a page... ok trying that again.... First off sorry I thought that is the route you were headed with the constant reference to interpretation, now i understand where you are coming from but if you are going down that route how about looking at the 18+ religions christianity plagiarized from, maybe one of those could offer an answer... there is no point at looking for an interpretation of a man made religion when we can be focusing on finding out far more by discarding it. Let us say there is a god, now if god is all loving as MOST religions claim) and if this god teaches morality for the purpose of getting along universally then would it not be favorable for such an intellectually advanced being to see us strive together without religion than fighting with one another over whos interpretation of a being (who has no influence on our lives further than the fact we argue about it) is right? Sorry if that was a shitty answer, I am running out of steam at this point and am waiting for the conversation to end so I can get stoned and watch some supernatural haha

No, it's fine. It's the internet, so I expect people to get ranty.
As far as Christianity 'plagiarizing', that might be a matter of every religion having a little bit of it right. I would like to see a day where people stop fighting over religion or faith, but I don't think that faith or religion are the real problem. I know plenty of atheists who are moral and trustworthy just like I know Christians who are selfish, arrogant bastards. This isn't to say that I think I'm better than them, mind you, but the point stands that greed and hatred have always been a driving force behind the terrible things people do. Try reading those articles I linked later on, and enjoy your Supernatural.

dude trust me I know what you mean, believe it or not I am actually an ordained pagan priest... I just like my religious debates, keeps you sharp, my beliefs stem on the basis of disregarding gods and focusing on personal and social development in order to better mankind rather than praising beings who even if they did exist would rather see us advancing peacefully than arguing over whos god is prettier.
thank you for the debate I quite enjoyed it even if it was a misinterpretation of a reitterated point, perhaps we can do this again sometime.

no it is not, it is black and white pure and simple. Either the texts are true and what is written is what it is... or they are wrong, at which point you do not pick and choose, if it is not 100% true then it is not the word of (insert god here) and therefor is not true.
just because your a pussy and cannot accept that you are a decaying biological organism with no afterlife does not mean you have to ruin it for everyone else.

The issues of morality and purpose of mankind are black and white, pure and simple?

first off that is not what we were talking about do not be a douche
secondly since when do you NEED religion to have morality....

religion is either true or it is not that is black and white, morality has nothing to do with religion twisty mctwisterson. I understand you wish to make a point but do not sink to twisting words around to make you feel you have an upper hand, that was pretty weak dude, I am happy to debate but only if you are going to do it with at least a little thought.

Morality has plenty to do with religion. This isn't at all to say that you need religion to be moral. But, the parts that make religion a matter of interpretation are the morals and ethics involved with it. I will agree that, when it comes down to it, you're either right or wrong. Since there's no objective reference for God's will, people continue to interpret texts in various ways. It isn't black and white because we have yet to reach a point where we could with 100% certainty prove or disprove the existence of God/god/gods. That's why it's called faith.

dude, faith is another word for ignorance. Morality is down to cultural conditions and generally a personal affair, yes religion tries to teach morals but from a barbaric age, what I am getting at is a simple fact. Either it is true or it is not, if it is true there is no interpretation. It is either the word of god or it is not and if it is not then it has no reason to be an example of morality in a modern society. We are not talking about an interpretation of morality of religion, we are talking about religion and I stick by what I have said not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact. Just because you cannot disprove them does not mean you should be allowing the corruption of society from the barbaric ramblings of extremely underdeveloped individuals from hundreds and even thousands of years ago, you may as well be going back in time and asking a random passer by how to fix your computer because they have as much expertise on that as they do about the nature of the universe, and please before continuing know that I have A levels in religion as well as chemistry, biology, physics and philosophy and am working toward a doctorate in neuro biology, I am not just pulling opinions out of my ass here. (that was not a jab at you FYI just a figure of speech)

Are you saying either religion is true or it isn't?
I know that much. But interpretations of the Bible exist because people don't know for sure what the correct interpretation is. You can't know for sure, really. I'd argue that everybody has faith, but that's a debate for another time.
www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-both-atheists-believers-need-to-stop-saying/
www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html

You'd benefit from reading those articles.

it is not interpretation... it is the word of god, that is not down to interpretation and if it is not the word of god then it is just the musings of some ancient people in which case it is obviously not real... can you really not get past that simple premise?

how many times do I have to say, this is not about interpretation, religions are set out in their texts as the word of that deity, that is simply not up for interpretation, and if it is then it is not from that deity, and if it is not from that deity then it is from man and well, you ever heard the saying don't believe everything you read, especially the delusional scribblings of man from hundreds of years ago who cannot understand a simple concept as lightening without having to explain it as magic... seriously man, I am not counting buddhism or any of the self advancement through internal study, those are nothing but good as they promote knowledge and the betterment of ones self rather than some mumbo jumbo from some flea ridden nutbag.

Actually, much of the Bible in the Catholic church, and perhaps others, is the inspired word of God, not his words exactly. That's why it is so open to interpretation, first by our clergy and now by our congregation as well.


You might be thinking of Islam, in which their holy texts are actually the words of God hand written by the illiterate Mohammed. That's why the Qur'an is never translated: any translation would not be the same as the original divine text.


So aspects of the Bible not happening does in no way debunk the beliefs of Christianity. The parables of Jesus, and the stories of the Old Testament are often used to teach a moral lesson. Much as iamphoenix was trying to point out.


*shrug* A simple misunderstanding.

ya know what, my last point was REAALY vague and shittly put, I think I am gonna call my side for now, I had a long day at work and it is nearing 1 am, my brain has decided to opt out at this point so it would be pointless on all of our parts if I carried on, I would however like to continue this at a later date if you guys are up for that, I am always up for a good debate with respectful chaps such as yourselves, gonna thumb you gents up just for your respectful approach on the subject as it is a rare occurance on here.

you may be right it is pretty late here my apologies on that one... howeever it is also _inspired__by or should I say plagiarized from over 18 predating religions which kinda nullifies the premise in itself.

I'm not saying it's down to interpretation. I agree with you that there is only one correct interpretation. There can be only one, but there's no objective reference for the will of God so people don't know what it is.

oh for fucks sake I typed up a large response and accidently backed up a page... ok trying that again.... First off sorry I thought that is the route you were headed with the constant reference to interpretation, now i understand where you are coming from but if you are going down that route how about looking at the 18+ religions christianity plagiarized from, maybe one of those could offer an answer... there is no point at looking for an interpretation of a man made religion when we can be focusing on finding out far more by discarding it. Let us say there is a god, now if god is all loving as MOST religions claim) and if this god teaches morality for the purpose of getting along universally then would it not be favorable for such an intellectually advanced being to see us strive together without religion than fighting with one another over whos interpretation of a being (who has no influence on our lives further than the fact we argue about it) is right? Sorry if that was a shitty answer, I am running out of steam at this point and am waiting for the conversation to end so I can get stoned and watch some supernatural haha

No, it's fine. It's the internet, so I expect people to get ranty.
As far as Christianity 'plagiarizing', that might be a matter of every religion having a little bit of it right. I would like to see a day where people stop fighting over religion or faith, but I don't think that faith or religion are the real problem. I know plenty of atheists who are moral and trustworthy just like I know Christians who are selfish, arrogant bastards. This isn't to say that I think I'm better than them, mind you, but the point stands that greed and hatred have always been a driving force behind the terrible things people do. Try reading those articles I linked later on, and enjoy your Supernatural.

dude trust me I know what you mean, believe it or not I am actually an ordained pagan priest... I just like my religious debates, keeps you sharp, my beliefs stem on the basis of disregarding gods and focusing on personal and social development in order to better mankind rather than praising beings who even if they did exist would rather see us advancing peacefully than arguing over whos god is prettier.
thank you for the debate I quite enjoyed it even if it was a misinterpretation of a reitterated point, perhaps we can do this again sometime.

Something post-2000, please?

All of those bands have released material post-2000, and if Testament and Pantera aren't enough for you you're simply wrong.
Fear Factory, Killswitch Engage, Shadows Fall, Misery Index, Chimaira, As I Lay Dying, Becoming The Archetype.

I KNOW they have post-2000 material, but their style is mostly the same.

I was talking about NEW, post-2000 bands.

and slipknot

sauce?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Z3R-6Od3E

Ready the tissues, mate.

I know, but they played the role of a lesbian couple on stage and they just reminded me of the people in the comic.

Ah alright. Well i've always personally believed that reality is at least partially based on consciousnesses. I don't think things exist in their present form in the same way when not observed. That's just me though, i like theories that follow that more. They make more sense to me.

Then what's with the double slit experiment? I mean, observation has some sort of effect on quantum particles, doesn't it?

It does, but only at the quantum level. The double slit experiment proved super position, but not for anything much bigger than electrons. You can measure the momentum and position of any classical particle simultaneously and not worry about breaking math.

Ah alright. Well i've always personally believed that reality is at least partially based on consciousnesses. I don't think things exist in their present form in the same way when not observed. That's just me though, i like theories that follow that more. They make more sense to me.

I'll look into that. Also, as far as the theories of quantum realities, which one do you think is true? Do you think reality is consciousnesses based at all?

No, I think that's silly. The universe existed before conscious life and trying to apply principles of quantum physics (observation creates order) to levels of reality that operate under different principles entirely is bunk.

Then what's with the double slit experiment? I mean, observation has some sort of effect on quantum particles, doesn't it?

It does, but only at the quantum level. The double slit experiment proved super position, but not for anything much bigger than electrons. You can measure the momentum and position of any classical particle simultaneously and not worry about breaking math.

Ah alright. Well i've always personally believed that reality is at least partially based on consciousnesses. I don't think things exist in their present form in the same way when not observed. That's just me though, i like theories that follow that more. They make more sense to me.

Ah, i see i see. I'm still fairly new at quantum physics. Still learning.

But i'm pretty sure when the rock isn't observed it's still in a different form. I know it isn't free particles, but it still takes a wavelike structure just like everything else. I've been reading this, so help me if i'm misinterpreting it.

Everything has a wave function but it doesn't necessarily behave like the wave functions of much smaller particles. If you want a good source on Quantum Mechanics, get a copy of Griffiths 2nd Edition of 'Introduction to Quantum Mechanics'. It will better help you understand the principles of Quantum.

I'll look into that. Also, as far as the theories of quantum realities, which one do you think is true? Do you think reality is consciousnesses based at all?

No, I think that's silly. The universe existed before conscious life and trying to apply principles of quantum physics (observation creates order) to levels of reality that operate under different principles entirely is bunk.

Then what's with the double slit experiment? I mean, observation has some sort of effect on quantum particles, doesn't it?

It does, but only at the quantum level. The double slit experiment proved super position, but not for anything much bigger than electrons. You can measure the momentum and position of any classical particle simultaneously and not worry about breaking math.

Ah alright. Well i've always personally believed that reality is at least partially based on consciousnesses. I don't think things exist in their present form in the same way when not observed. That's just me though, i like theories that follow that more. They make more sense to me.

It still behaves very differently when it is not under observation.

Hell, theory still says that all the electrons in the rock are exactly the same until measured.

Those principles only apply to the quantum level, though. Once you reach 100 molecules or so, you don't need to worry about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and normalization itself becomes silly. As far as calling the electrons in the rock identical, that's a matter of considering the bonding (since identical fermions can't have the same spin in the same space, e.g. shells).

Ah, i see i see. I'm still fairly new at quantum physics. Still learning.

But i'm pretty sure when the rock isn't observed it's still in a different form. I know it isn't free particles, but it still takes a wavelike structure just like everything else. I've been reading this, so help me if i'm misinterpreting it.

Everything has a wave function but it doesn't necessarily behave like the wave functions of much smaller particles. If you want a good source on Quantum Mechanics, get a copy of Griffiths 2nd Edition of 'Introduction to Quantum Mechanics'. It will better help you understand the principles of Quantum.

I'll look into that. Also, as far as the theories of quantum realities, which one do you think is true? Do you think reality is consciousnesses based at all?

No, I think that's silly. The universe existed before conscious life and trying to apply principles of quantum physics (observation creates order) to levels of reality that operate under different principles entirely is bunk.

Then what's with the double slit experiment? I mean, observation has some sort of effect on quantum particles, doesn't it?

It does, but only at the quantum level. The double slit experiment proved super position, but not for anything much bigger than electrons. You can measure the momentum and position of any classical particle simultaneously and not worry about breaking math.

Ah alright. Well i've always personally believed that reality is at least partially based on consciousnesses. I don't think things exist in their present form in the same way when not observed. That's just me though, i like theories that follow that more. They make more sense to me.

The best night ever.

*Second to last

Damn it.

The best night ever.