• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Proof of the Existence of God

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
1. By definition, "a perfect ass" is ass that no greater than which can be conceived.

2. A perfect ass exists in the mind; it is conceivable.

3. Ass that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than ass that exists only in the mind.

4. If a perfect ass exists only as an idea, than we can conceive of an ass greater than a perfect ass — an ass that exists as an idea and in reality.

5. As by definition a perfect ass is an ass that no greater than which can be conceived, a perfect ass cannot exist only as an idea—thus it must exist in reality.

If anyone sees it, please post pics. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyes85 said:
In reality, you can remove "organized" from your point and it would not change a thing. And when that "justification" merges with power, you have the things such as the inquisition, terrorism, and to a lesser extent, the christian-right of america today.
Click to expand...

Interesting point.... I guess I meant "Organized religion" more in an "I need someone to tell me what I should think" kinda way. I don't mean to suggest that all people who follow some "organized" religion can't think for themselves. Bgrad, for example, seems pretty orthodox, but he's also his own man.

Speaking of Bgrad - I like your observation regarding the "first cause" "proof" I hadn't considered that line of thought before (that is, the reason the "proof" fails)
 
Upvote 0
OK, so conservative Christians are the equivalent of terrorists, only to a lesser extent? How so? Do they kill innocent people "to a lesser extent"? I think your statement is extremely irresponsible.
Click to expand...

No where did I say they were "equivalent." Please re-read the post I was responding to. It referenced the problem associated with individuals justifying their thinking or their behavior on their religous beliefs. Beliefs which we all can agree can never be verified in this lifetime. Terrorists are not the only ones who do this. Every religious group does, as do the politically active conservative christian groups in america.

Do you doubt that for a great number of people, their position on gays, gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, etc are based upon their religous beliefs? If you expect others to conform to what your religion teaches you as the right way to live, you are in fact going through the same thought process/justification that many terrorists do. The mere fact that you are not willing to kill innocent people to achieve your goal does not alter this underlying fact.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyes85 said:
No where did I say they were "equivalent." Please re-read the post I was responding to. It referenced the problem associated with individuals justifying their thinking or their behavior on their religous beliefs. Beliefs which we all can agree can never be verified in this lifetime. Terrorists are not the only ones who do this. Every religious group does, as do the politically active conservative christian groups in america.

Do you doubt that for a great number of people, their position on gays, gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, etc are based upon their religous beliefs? If you expect others to conform to what your religion teaches you as the right way to live, you are in fact going through the same thought process/justification that many terrorists do. The mere fact that you are not willing to kill innocent people to achieve your goal does not alter this underlying fact.
Click to expand...

One doesn't need any type of religion at all to see that homosexuality is an abnormal, potentially destructive behavior. You can look at it prurely from a scientific / biological perspective and note the ramifications. I personally can live and let live, but i will not be forced to condone or approve of it.
From a purely scientific / biological viewpoint, you can argue both sides of abortion, especially when introducing ecological issues.
Prayer in schools - yes, that would be the one thing you listed that would actually apply to your argument. Prayer shouldn't be mandated in schools, nor should it be prohibited.
Finally, as an evangelical Christians I do not expect others to "conform", I merely wish to tell my story and good news. Legalism is a bane of organized religion, I will grant you that. Legalism is what leads to things like the inquisition and terrorism.
 
Upvote 0
Legalism is a bane of organized religion, I will grant you that. Legalism is what leads to things like the inquisition and terrorism.
Click to expand...

That was the only point I was making: through power or influence, attempting to enforce your religous views on others. It is not a new concept, and in no way limited to terrorist groups.

As to your other points, it is certainly possible to oppose gays, or abortion for reasons other than religion, but you know that in reality it simply is not the case. The movements to reverse Roe, or outlaw same sex marriage, etc. are almost universally driven by religion.
 
Upvote 0
NightmaresDad said:
One doesn't need any type of religion at all to see that homosexuality is an abnormal, potentially destructive behavior. You can look at it prurely from a scientific / biological perspective and note the ramifications. I personally can live and let live, but i will not be forced to condone or approve of it.
Click to expand...
What is your basis for claiming that homosexuality is scientifically and biologically “abnormal, potentially destructive behavior”? Abnormal in what sense? Homosexuality is observed in nature among many species, most notoriously in one of our closest living relatives: Bonobos. Both male/male and female/female sexual contact are very common and many individuals have been observed preferring to bond exclusively with their same sex and not occasional bisexual behavior. The only destructive behavior associated with homosexuality would be if the entire species exhibited a preference for their own sex. Obviously the species would die out in one generation. But what other destructive behavior(s) are you suggesting?
 
Upvote 0
NMD - If you take "religion" to mean one's personal belief system, then what 85 is saying makes absolute sense. I think the way 85 is considering the word "religion" even an atheist is practicing a "religion." In that circumstance, a person is nothing without his religion, and one's views on everything is based on its practice.

Edit - Looks like 85 answered before I could answer for him :p
 
Upvote 0
Brewtus said:
What is your basis for claiming that homosexuality is scientifically and biologically “abnormal, potentially destructive behavior”?...
Click to expand...
Use the search function, and you can even include my user ID within the search parameters to help narrow it down. Any further concerns/statements that you have regarding that topic should be addressed in the proper threads, not this one.

Buckeyes85 said:
...The movements to reverse Roe, or outlaw same sex marriage, etc. are almost universally driven by religion.
Click to expand...
As BKB alluded to, what your actually referring to are mores (personal value systems). And while it's true that religion can be a large contributor to such mores, it usually isn't the only reason for such beliefs. Many times though it does seem that the easiest response regarding why someone feels strongly about something is because of their religion. Their inability to clearly articulate the many reasons behind their reasoning though is generally cast aside since it then becomes easy to blame organized religions.

I would also point out that, IMO, statements such as yours make it seem as though that it is only religious people that have an agenda regarding these issues. What seems to be lacking, is the point that proponents for such issues also have their own agendas. For instance, it may be a teenage girl who is looking for a way to undo one of her past actions and thereby avoid all resulting responsibility for that action. Another such example would be when someone like Kinsey goes on to become a notable figure in sexual behavior, and coincidentally puts forth theories which are intended to normalize his own lifestyle. So whether ones agenda is born from religion, avoiding responsibility, or attempting to normalize the perception of lifestyles, an agenda is always present. Let's try to not only pick on the religious ones.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyes85 said:
No where did I say they were "equivalent." Please re-read the post I was responding to. It referenced the problem associated with individuals justifying their thinking or their behavior on their religous beliefs.
Click to expand...

I know what you were responding to. But you added the phrase about justification merging with power. Then you gave examples: the Inquisition, terrorists, and "the christian-right". To what extent does the electoral power of a "christian-right" voting bloc approximate the powers exercised by those other groups? How can you compare the power of influence in elections and in debates with the power to arrest, imprison, torture, and kill innocent people? Whether you know it or not, this is exactly what you were doing. I'm calling it irresponsible and incendiary.

Beliefs which we all can agree can never be verified in this lifetime. Terrorists are not the only ones who do this. Every religious group does, as do the politically active conservative christian groups in america.

Do you doubt that for a great number of people, their position on gays, gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, etc are based upon their religous beliefs? If you expect others to conform to what your religion teaches you as the right way to live, you are in fact going through the same thought process/justification that many terrorists do. The mere fact that you are not willing to kill innocent people to achieve your goal does not alter this underlying fact.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Every person who participates in the political process is trying to influence policy in a particular direction. What motivates a person might be religion, but it might also be experience, background, race, sex, money, friendships, etc. Why is only one of these motivations considered suspicious to you? Furthermore, as long as people stay within the bounds of the law, why do you even care what motivates them? If I'm opposing you because of my religion, why would that bother you more than if I was opposing you because someone paid me to do so? The motivation is irrelevant. A terrorist is worthy of condemnation because of his actions and his methods, not because of his beliefs.
 
Upvote 0
donkey.jpg


Someone want to dispute the perfection?????
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top