This topic is locked.

FoliFF said:
It is the tvtropes isn't it?
Partially

Well. Here we are. The Page of the Beast. And naturally the guy with three 6's in his birthdate posted on it first...
Curiously enough, if I take the letters in "ecchifan" and multiply their places in the English alphabet together (5x3x3x8x9x6x1x15) I get 291600, which is evenly divisible by 6 (48600)... Heh.
You forogt the number 96 which is also a party of his name. Go redo it.
minabiStrikesAgain said:
Curiously enough, if I take the letters in "ecchifan" and multiply their places in the English alphabet together (5x3x3x8x9x6x1x15) I get 291600, which is evenly divisible by 6 (48600)... Heh.
Umm... N is 14, not 15. And since you're multiplying them, the result will be divisible by 6 so long as one number is even and one number is a multiple of 3...

*Edit: In other words, with 7 unique letters there's a 97.9% chance that the product will be divisible by 6 (not counting the probability of each letter occurring in a name or word)
Heck, 6 is one of the numbers... Shit. =P

Score: minabi = -6 Zolxys = 6

FoliFF said:
You forogt the number 96 which is also a party of his name. Go redo it.
No, I didn't forget, I just chose not to include the numbers. But apparently it wouldn't make a difference...
minabiStrikesAgain said:
Sorry noitis, but I'm not going to go any further with it. In my opinion, if Anpan is restricting himself to "science" and shunning everything supernatural, then he is too closed-minded to be worth debating something with. Especially so because he believes in the concept of "fact".
Actually I'm not against the concept of "God" or supernatural stuff. I'm an agnostic (because atheism is as much a religion as any other).

The thing is, if there is no evidence of something, you cannot reasonable assume it to be there. So unless there is evidence, it is superstition. It *could* be true, but there is no indication that it is.

If you decide to accept that death isn't final (which is common in religion) this has some problematic consequences:
You can use this "fact" to manipulate others. Suicide bombings for instance are almost always motivated by religion. Would they still do it if they didn't believe that God (whatever they call it) exsists and there is no life after death? Both things are, to this day, completely baseless speculation. Sure, it *may* be, but that's nothing short of gambling.

So what good is there in believing that death isn't final? From a psychological point of view, it doesn't matter wheather you believe that you'll live in an eternal paradise after "death" or that the flying spaghetti monster will revive you as soon as you die in a new body. As far as actual knowledge goes, death means game over.

It's fine to believe in life after death (in whatever form), it's also fine to research in this field (otherwise you couldn't ever prove the theory either wrong or right), but to base *any* behavior on it before it has been proven is nothing short of dangerous, because it influences our morals ("death sentence is okay, he will live on elsewhere" to name one extreme). It gives you all sorts of excuses to do things people would otherwise not do.

That is why it is a good thing to act only upon facts (and yes, that is a concept I strongly believe in, because it has never once failed me). Would you sentence someone to prison because you believe he did something without any solid evidence? I wouldn't. (I know this happens, but this is because of the human factor in trials).
Again, I'm not saying anything else on the topic. =)
When I saw Zolxys's post with N = 14, I thought of chemistry....
minabiStrikesAgain said:
Again, I'm not saying anything else on the topic. =)
Well that's certainly one way of going about it. What's the point of bringing something up in a discussion if you are not willing to stand for your opinion?
So are we talking about psychological manipulative warfare, existentialism or death? Or all of them?
Whether death is final or not. The other things you mentioned I just brought up to make a point.
Anpan said:
The thing is, if there is no evidence of something, you cannot reasonable assume it to be there. So unless there is evidence, it is superstition. It *could* be true, but there is no indication that it is.

If you decide to accept that death isn't final (which is common in religion) this has some problematic consequences:
You can use this "fact" to manipulate others. Compress Sure, it *may* be, but that's nothing short of gambling.

It's fine to believe in life after death (in whatever form), it's also fine to research in this field (otherwise you couldn't ever prove the theory either wrong or right), but to base *any* behavior on it before it has been proven is nothing short of dangerous, because it influences our morals ("death sentence is okay, he will live on elsewhere" to name one extreme). It gives you all sorts of excuses to do things people would otherwise not do.

That is why it is a good thing to act only upon facts (and yes, that is a concept I strongly believe in, because it has never once failed me).
On the last Government Census I declared myself Atheist. I'm quite fixated on the idea that, if it's not been proven or can not be proven by rational means, I'll let that be what it is, it doesn't happen or can not happen.
Many people justify a god as being something beyond human intelligence, and use that as an explanation for why we do not see him/her. I can not just let that by. It's just very illogical based on everything in the Old Testament/Torah/Quran (I wrote all three, manly because they are essentially the same thing with slightly different stories and prophets). Don't get me wrong, I have no objections to people reading these texts because they do teach very good morals when not misinterpreted. Which is the fundamental flaw of organised religion but I digress.

I do not see evidence is an afterlife per ce, at least not in the form of heaven and hell.
I'm quite a believer in the many worlds interpretation. Inherently it goes against my stance of can't be proven = can't happen. But I think it's very logical.
^agreed.
But I like to believe there is a place we go after passing away.
Though I prefer the idea of reincarnation.

But I really find a lot of the stories and tales about all things 'mythical' fascinating. Just yesterday I was watching a new episode of 'Vikings', Christian guy got taken away by a group of vikings. Was fascinated by their ways, learned their ways and altered believe. After a few years got captured by the Christians again, crucified but saved in the last minute. Now he's starting to see things. Maria bleeding, visions you name it. Without all those past tales some things would be quite boring haha.

But yes. If it cannot be proven, it's just another tale amongst the many.
As a Christian, I'll put my two cents into the discussion. I believe in a Heaven and a Hell. I think that, unfortunately, most people will go to Hell. Also, you can't get into Heaven just by being a good person.

As for our bodies, we will not have the same body in Heaven as we did on Earth. I haven't learned enough to be really specific about it. Then, after we live in Heaven for a while, we come back down to "Earth", after it's been destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up.
Going by what it generally said about the Christian god...
I'd like to think the all loving and forgiving god will let anyone into "heaven" if they are good person, even it they don't believe. Otherwise the concept is flawed. Another big issue with organised religion.
Not so, dear boy. You have to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior to get into Heaven. Just being good doesn't cut it.

After all, Jesus said: "...no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

If just being nice was all that mattered, then people like atheists and those that worshipped other gods/deities could get into Heaven, and that's just not how it works.

God forgives everyone, so long as they place their faith in him and accept Christ's sacrifice for us.
I declare myself Scientist. One that doesn't follow religions with some deity. They say science is intricate with religion. Well it's not my fault said people were bloody religious and got their hide from religion. Look at me, non religious person going for science. Depends on the field, really. Stuff that deal with religion, I'd rather leave it to burn. They come from a basis. I go from scratch.
But it in itself means nothing. Over 99% of what we know about the Universe is most likely false.
I'd like to write much more, but I won't take my time to do so.

Btw, 666th page.

@Emmy: Christian God said there is only ONE God. Does that mean that all Asian people go to Hell?
Yeah, kinda ironic that I'm talkin' about God on this particular page, huh? Ah, numbers.
Tensa, do you really study it?
If you study physics a lot, you should know something concerning the world, its laws and nature. Can you tell me what it is?
otaku_emmy said:
If just being nice was all that mattered, then people like atheists and those that worshipped other gods/deities could get into Heaven, and that's just not how it works.
Putting aside what you gotta do to get to heaven for a minute: There are several major religions. Most of them state that there is only one god and it's theirs and if you don't believe in him you go to hell (very very roughly).

Now, who's right and who's wrong? A scientist would say: "Experiment time!" now you can't really do that with something you cannot prove. So what do you do? Blindly believe and hope you're part of the right religion? (Seriously, I'd like to know this)
@noitis: Hey, I reached the 10-d-mails-per-24-hour-period in my most recent reply to you. I think I have to wait around an hour to send another reply.

EDIT: I just believe in my God. I don't know how to rationalize it in a very...precise way. I've only been a Christian for a little under one year.

EDIT 2: Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Jesus being our Savior and the Son of God is only a part of Christianity anyway, and that's the most important concept.
@Noitis: Sense, you're not making.
I'm trying extremely hard not to offend anyone in this discussion. Religious arguments get out of hand easily.
Throughout history religion has be extremely flawed. The Catholic Church is one of the richest institutions in the world. The reason this is, is because back then, you were able to buy your way to heaven. You donated to the church you were more likely to be seen as a good person. Pretty much every religion is the same. Even the the ancient greek/roman times before Christ and in asia, tributes to the gods at shrines were the same thing. Please the gods and they will favour you. Your life will be better, etc.

As well as that, all of the scriptures they were not written by any one person, neither can we say that they are the words of a higher power. Intact very few people could write let alone read at the time of writing.
We also have no evidence that there was a Jesus or Moses or Abraham who could perform miracles or contact a higher power.These people probably existed but most probably did not do anything like what is written about them. In a time where science effectively did not exist people will make explanations for things. A divine power is an easy way to do that.

I just thought of a way it put this.
God created the Universe. God created man in his own image. God gave man free will.
Thus God has given me the ability to not believe in him. He should forgive me for his mistake of giving me free will. Come to think of it, god is not the perfect being in the first place, cite the old testament. You'll find his is extremely bloodthirsty and cruel. True evil is god himself.

Please don't make me compare mass murderers who are Christians and have asked god to be forgiven for their mistake (due to free will) to someone who is an atheist who has done nothing but good for everyone around them.

Anpan said:
Putting aside what you gotta do to get to heaven for a minute: There are several major religions. Most of them state that there is only one god and it's theirs and if you don't believe in him you go to hell (very very roughly).

Now, who's right and who's wrong? A scientist would say: "Experiment time!" now you can't really do that with something you cannot prove. So what do you do? Blindly believe and hope you're part of the right religion? (Seriously, I'd like to know this)
I have to agree with you there. The only way around that is the interpretation that God in all religions is the same person. And by having lots of different groups saying do this do that. You'd have a better chance of just following the morals instead of actually believing in one single god.

Religion is just blind following. Back up by my point that no-one could read or write. So no be able to actually read the bible. As well as that, it was in Latin so no-one understood what was being said anyway. Only when the printing press was invented in 1048 or so and books became wide spread ( up until that time, monks were the copiers of books and so books took a long time to reproduce and in small quantity) was when people actually started becoming literate. Then people started questioning the teaching of religion.
Hey, we all have our own opinions. You're right about God giving you the freedom of will to not believe in Him. That's your choice to make.
otaku_emmy said:
Hey, we all have our own opinions. You're right about God giving you the freedom of will to not believe in Him. That's your choice to make.
I think the question was: why hold it against someone if he chooses not to believe in him? If he truly cared about being believed in, he could literally cause every single person on the world to believe in him with a snap of his finger.
@Tensa: Here you have

When I was in university I liked physics and sometimes had a little discussions with our lecturer. There were a lot of mathematics concerning "Creation" of the world and it's still hard to imagine how the smallest miscalculation could prevent it. If you take this fact into your consideration... This world is a miracle.

I'm expecting something.
You are right. That is my choice to make.

Though if there was a religion I would not mind. It's Buddhism. There's no higher power, and it is highly based on good morals. Rather than appeasing that entity.

Anpan said:
I think the question was: why hold it against someone if he chooses not to believe in him? If he truly cared about being believed in, he could literally cause every single person on the world to believe in him with a snap of his finger.
Yes, that's exactly what I was tapping on.

======================
Side note, I'm travelling to the Caribbean for the next 10 days. I may not be on as much as usual.
Stealth makes very good points. Not quite opinions....

Let's go by Norse mythology and become warriors. Let's kill hoards of people who kill for fun or for riches and hope that the Valkyries will take us to Valhalla for our deeds and strength.

One thing though.... are humans really that important or are they merely ants with arrogance?

Noitis, I agree with Einstein. Religion is merely a creation of humans out of their fear, hope and despair.
Anpan said:
I think the question was: why hold it against someone if he chooses not to believe in him?
Oh no, I don't hold it against anyone. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs n' stuff. Just throwin' what I know into the mix. As a Christian, I'm supposed to talk about God's love with other people.

Plus, it's not so much that He WANTS us to believe in Him, but more about Him wanting us to accept the gift of salvation He offers. He wants us to be with Him in Heaven one day.

EDIT 1: Cool! Have fun in the sun, Stealth.
EDIT 2: Yes. Since God made us in His image, we are the highest beings on Earth, and not to be thought of as just another animal.
@Tensa: I suppose your conclusion is incomplete.

Added: Also I'd like to assume that you all know the difference between arguing and discussing.