# Religion in the ufc



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

I just want to say, I'm not trying to cause any religious arguements or provoke hatred and I'm fully aware this is a pretty sensitive topic. So feel free to move this to the smack talk section or just close the thread admins.

On to the point, are most fighters religious? After many victories they thank God (recently off the top of my head Belfort and Marquardt), I personally get slightly irritated, but perhaps that's my own atheist bias. What if both fighters were praying to the same God? You won the fight, not God bestowing you with powers, that's my opinion.

Are there any other different religious fighters in the UFC? It seems most are christian, how well would an Islamic prayer to Allah go down in the southern states? It seems most fans are Christian. 

What's the reason for such a large amount of fighters being religious. Surely that's not a coincidence. Is there something that comes with the level of intense competition and almost human nature that provides athletes to look for a higher power, hope and God if you will. Or do they accquire this after starting MMA?

Or perhaps it's where the fighters come from, Brazil and America generally have strong religious ties back to society. I'm English and whilst religion is very apparent it's definitly taking a decline. So it's very possible that's my skewered opinion.

Please discuss your thoughts, as I'm interested in hearing what you think. And keep flames to a minimum.


----------



## Biowza (May 22, 2007)

Most fighters aren't particuarly smart or come from poor upbringings. These two things are the breeding ground for religion. Many studies have found that lack of intelligence and poor upbringing makes you much more susceptible to religious belief. This is why you don't see a great deal of religious scientists and the like. I'm sure someone will say "OMG LOOK AT PERSON X, HE'S SMART AND RELIGIOUS". These people obviously don't understand what I'm saying.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

See, I actually sort of came to that conclusion my self, but I didn't want to say it so bluntly as I don't belive it's 100% that clear cut, and I'm sure you don't either. Also I don't wish to offend anyone. But on the most part I must agree with you. 

Could you link me to some of these studies as I'm very interested. I'm at work and don't really have the time.


----------



## Wookie (Jul 20, 2008)

It's funny you said that because I was under the impression that most fighters in the UFC have had higher education. And most are well spoken and intellegent. I think a big part of being religious is how you are brought up.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

If I were in the UFC I would be "religious" hell I might even thank god after a fight. Who are my fans? Americans, and 65% of the american population are christian. I would be religious the same way barack obama is religious, in the public eye. The low 54 million american atheists who are well educated and liberal probably don't even watch UFC or combat sports, or at least not many of them. Its just business or another way into the spot light.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

Im not a religious dude, but im not completely narrow minded and atheist either. Sorry, i find "devout" atheists to be about as obnoxious as jehovah's witnesses. I dont care who is praying to what god in any circumstances and i dont see why anyone gets worked up about someones prayers or lack of prayers. For some reason I dont see the audience of the UFC getting all worked up if someone went all muslim and started throwing shout outs to allah after a fight, i dont know why, for some reason i just dont think it would be a big deal.


----------



## Biowza (May 22, 2007)

Wookie said:


> It's funny you said that because I was under the impression that most fighters in the UFC have had higher education. And most are well spoken and intellegent. I think a big part of being religious is how you are brought up.


Higher education? I honestly doubt that. Sure there are guys like Rich Franklin, Kenny Florian, and Joe Lauzon who are smart. But for the most part they aren't very smart.



FredFish1 said:


> See, I actually sort of came to that conclusion my self, but I didn't want to say it so bluntly as I don't belive it's 100% that clear cut, and I'm sure you don't either. Also I don't wish to offend anyone. But on the most part I must agree with you.
> 
> Could you link me to some of these studies as I'm very interested. I'm at work and don't really have the time.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=db2ee09bae0195cc1ecbd026da77245c

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=bdb3ca48b21fdb2959f6f8ce4b6001de

This is a Gallup Poll done a few years ago. You'll notice the poorest parts of Africa/Middle east and asia hold the most importance to religion. There are other studies on this, but it was in a book which I gave to my friend.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

"Im not a religious dude, but im not completely narrow minded and atheist either. Sorry, i find "devout" atheists to be about as obnoxious as jehovah's witnesses. I dont care who is praying to what god in any circumstances and i dont see why anyone gets worked up about someones prayers or lack of prayers. For some reason I dont see the audience of the UFC getting all worked up if someone went all muslim and started throwing shout outs to allah after a fight, i dont know why, for some reason i just dont think it would be a big deal."

Are you trolling? You're not narrow-minded, but find all atheists and jehovas witnesses obnoxious. Oh ok. Yeah that makes sense.
Figuratively speaking, if you're an atheist you're devout to it, in the sense you refuse all other beliefs.

You've also just showed how you failed to read, no one is getting "worked up" just expressing opinions. And people do get offended at beliefs or lack of, so I suggest you take your ignorance else where. 

Wow can you at least argue properly? "If some one went all muslim" lol... seriously? 

Your post was exactly what I was trying to keep out of my topic, I don't mind you expressing your opinion. But do it with a little class please.

*Edit* Thanks Bio +rep. That's really interesting, definitely going to read in to that more when I get home.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Biowza said:


> Most fighters aren't particuarly smart or come from poor upbringings. These two things are the breeding ground for religion. Many studies have found that lack of intelligence and poor upbringing makes you much more susceptible to religious belief. This is why you don't see a great deal of religious scientists and the like. I'm sure someone will say "OMG LOOK AT PERSON X, HE'S SMART AND RELIGIOUS". These people obviously don't understand what I'm saying.


Einstein believed in God but not religion. I'm of the same belief myself. There is a difference between following a religion and believing in a greater power of some kind.

To quote Einstein : "That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

Now, if a fighter believes in an established religion like Christianity or Islam, and then thanks God for winning a fight, then I have to agree with the OP : Why would God support you and not the other fighter? It seems absurd to me and quite contradictory considering the message that these religions seem to push which is equality and love.

However, a fighter who believes in a god/power of some kind without following an established religion, then that I can relate to. Its about listening to your own feelings and acting on them rather than doing what's written in a book or scripture. eg, If I won a fight I would thank god. Not because I won or that he/she/it helped me win, but because it was a joyous thing and I'm still alive.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

joshua7789 said:


> Im not a religious dude, but im not completely narrow minded and atheist either. Sorry, i find "devout" atheists to be about as obnoxious as jehovah's witnesses. I dont care who is praying to what god in any circumstances and i dont see why anyone gets worked up about someones prayers or lack of prayers. For some reason I dont see the audience of the UFC getting all worked up if someone went all muslim and started throwing shout outs to allah after a fight, i dont know why, for some reason i just dont think it would be a big deal.


Yea, I've definitely met my share of D-bag atheists. What annoys me the most about them is how they carry their huge banners and signs outside of bars/clubs/universities/medical clinics to bash others for wasting their lives and when they force their science on us. The only thing worse are the ones that knock on your door at 7am on saturday waking you up to tell you about evolution. Nothing wrong with a persons beliefs as long as they don't infringe on anothers rights.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

FredFish1 said:


> "Im not a religious dude, but im not completely narrow minded and atheist either. Sorry, i find "devout" atheists to be about as obnoxious as jehovah's witnesses. I dont care who is praying to what god in any circumstances and i dont see why anyone gets worked up about someones prayers or lack of prayers. For some reason I dont see the audience of the UFC getting all worked up if someone went all muslim and started throwing shout outs to allah after a fight, i dont know why, for some reason i just dont think it would be a big deal."
> 
> Are you trolling? You're not narrow-minded, but find all atheists and jehovas witnesses obnoxious. Oh ok. Yeah that makes sense.
> Figuratively speaking, if you're an atheist you're devout to it, in the sense you refuse all other beliefs.
> ...



Kind of missed the point of my post there, didnt ya? I wasnt in anyway worked up. The atheist/jehovahs witness remark was me stating how i find both ends of the religious spectrum to be very narrow minded. Saying "going all muslim" does sound stupid, but im very high and that is what came out. Sorry that your getting all but hurt because i dont share the same opinion as you.


----------



## Deftsound (Jan 1, 2008)

Normally when fighters thank god they are thanking god for their ability or fact that they were healthy and able to fight at the best of their ability and for the fact that no one was seriously injured, not for the win, the same reason people thank god that no one was injured in a serious accident or for the fact that they performed well. 

The fact that you get annoyed by this just shows that you don't truly understand the christian religion and the reason they are thanking god. I can understand this but you are wrong. I guarantee you if you asked marquetd he would agree with me and i know this because I am a fellow Christian. If you are not Christian and/or you know nothing about the religion its easy to come to assumptions. 

Secondly, this map you posted is retarded. According to it, Africa is the most religious? America was founded on Christian philosophy. I could make a map just like that citing which countries like hamburgers and claim it was America even though i have no factual basis on that. Atheists like yourselves are just trying to prove the lack thereof of god anyway you can. Cite the maps sources, where did they get their info from? Who is to say that Africa is most religious. Some of the smartest people in the world are or were religous (Ben Steinn, Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin etc etc) 

Lighten up bro....a fighter can thank whoever they want...who cares????



Biowza said:


> Higher education? I honestly doubt that. Sure there are guys like Rich Franklin, Kenny Florian, and Joe Lauzon who are smart. But for the most part they aren't very smart.
> 
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=db2ee09bae0195cc1ecbd026da77245c
> ...


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Do you have a serious problem? Try talking in a non condescending manner?

I didn't say you were worked up...

I never said I don't or even have a problem with your shared opinion. Kinda missed the point there didnt ya? 
I clearly stated that you expressed it in a retarded way, which you even just admitted...

By accusing other groups of being narrow-minded, you demonstrate your self to be narrow-minded, you're a hypocrite and sadly you don't even realize how moronic your post was.

Don't accuse me of being all hurt, in attempt to gain some moral high ground. That's pathetic.

I'm not going to reply to you any more until you at least formulate a post that bears resembelance to something intelligent.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

I have a friend who works in Africa helping to deal with the AIDS problems. She confirms that Africa is VERY religious and quite barbaric in imposing the faith in some places. How Gallup defines religion is open to debate though. Are they counting Christianity, Islam etc or Religion full stop? If you include tribal/pagan religion then I can see how Africa would feature strongly.

Back to the fighters:



Deftsound said:


> Normally when fighters thank god they are thanking god for their ability or fact that they were healthy and able to fight at the best of their ability and for the fact that no one was seriously injured, not for the win, the same reason people thank god that no one was injured in a serious accident or for the fact that they performed well.


I agree with the above.

EDIT. Cant we debate this without getting hung up on how one poster or another words his opinions?


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

Deftsound said:


> Normally when fighters thank god they are thanking god for their ability or fact that they were healthy and able to fight at the best of their ability and for the fact that no one was seriously injured, not for the win, the same reason people thank god that no one was injured in a serious accident or for the fact that they performed well.
> 
> The fact that you get annoyed by this just shows that you don't truly understand the christian religion and the reason they are thanking god. I can understand this but you are wrong. I guarantee you if you asked marquetd he would agree with me and i know this because I am a fellow Christian. If you are not Christian and/or you know nothing about the religion its easy to come to assumptions.
> 
> ...


*facepalm*

"I have found christian dogma unintelligible." 

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches"

ugh accidentally hit enter, these are direct quotes from benjamin franklin. Einstein was not religious either, a good amount of the founders of America were deist not christian.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

FredFish1 said:


> Do you have a serious problem? Try talking in a non condescending manner?
> 
> I didn't say you were worked up...
> 
> ...


Sir, i can assure that everything i state at this moment will be somewhat moronic. I think your kind of a dick. Does that merrit some sort of response? Anyway, you accused me of trolling for stating my opinion. Clearly you were looking for a certain kind of response to this thread, sorry i didnt live up to your standards chief.


----------



## Deftsound (Jan 1, 2008)

xeberus said:


> *facepalm*
> 
> I have found christian dogma unintelligible.
> 
> Lighthouses are more helpful than churches


Fine, no one says you have to agree with the christian philosophy, just like I as a christian don't have to agree with Islam, or Atheism, or voodoo or whatever Africans believe in, To each his own. 

All I'm saying is that it's easy to mis-interpret what a fighter is thanking god for when he thanks god after winning a fight. He's not saying, "Thanks god for letting Me win the fight and Not the other guy", hes saying "Thanks god for letting me fight to the best of my ability and for being a healthy talented fighter." Theres a Big difference.


----------



## Biowza (May 22, 2007)

Deftsound said:


> The fact that you get annoyed by this just shows that you don't truly understand the christian religion and the reason they are thanking god. I can understand this but you are wrong. I guarantee you if you asked marquetd he would agree with me and i know this because I am a fellow Christian. If you are not Christian and/or you know nothing about the religion its easy to come to assumptions.


"Understand the christian religion" oh that's rich. I'd actually make a bet that 90% of 'Christians' haven't read the bible. Have you read it cover-to-cover? Don't think so. Christians like yourself adore the bible because without reading it you can say "X is true and the world of god while Y is just 'open for interpretation'" 



Deftsound said:


> Secondly, this map you posted is retarded. According to it, Africa is the most religious? America was founded on Christian philosophy. I could make a map just like that citing which countries like hamburgers and claim it was America even though i have no factual basis on that. Atheists like yourselves are just trying to prove the lack thereof of god anyway you can. Cite the maps sources, where did they get their info from? Who is to say that Africa is most religious. Some of the smartest people in the world are or were religous (Ben Steinn, Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin etc etc)


Geez...I just don't know where to start. It's a Gallup poll (one of the most respected pollsters in the world), questioning people from 137 countries about how important religion is in their life. I don't know what you're talking about hamburgers or something...I'm willing to say that you've never done any science in your life, or if you did you weren't very good at it. 

Ben Stein? Are you ******* kidding me? He doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Einstein. Ben Franklin? Einstein? Arrghh, the stupid is overwhelming...


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

Deftsound said:


> Fine, no one says you have to agree with the christian philosophy, just like I as a christian don't have to agree with Islam, or Atheism, or voodoo or whatever Africans believe in, To each his own.
> 
> All I'm saying is that it's easy to mis-interpret what a fighter is thanking god for when he thanks god after winning a fight. He's not saying, "Thanks god for letting Me win the fight and Not the other guy", hes saying "Thanks god for letting me fight to the best of my ability and for being a healthy talented fighter." Theres a Big difference.


Oh lol not my words 

To each his own indeed, as I said earlier nothing wrong with a persons beliefs as long as they don't infringe on another person's rights. 

Just curious when you say "christian philosophy" what exactly do you mean? I believe it was thomas jefferson or lincoln that re-wrote the entire bible without any of the miracles and magic, but left the moral tales etc and that would technically fall in line with "christian philosophy" even though it is entirely secular.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Deftsound said:


> All I'm saying is that it's easy to mis-interpret what a fighter is thanking god for when he thanks god after winning a fight. He's not saying, "Thanks god for letting Me win the fight and Not the other guy", hes saying "Thanks god for letting me fight to the best of my ability and for being a healthy talented fighter." Theres a Big difference.


I agree with you in general, but I do think that many fighters do seem to thank god for letting/helping them win. All speculation of course. It's the same in lots of sports. Quotes like, "I think god for giving me strength to kick this guys arse" are not uncommon. I would love to actually hear a fighter say, "I would like to thank god for making this an awesome fight and giving my opponent the strength to challange me."


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

Umm...Maybe i was wrong about people not getting worked up about a fighters religious beliefs. Folks are a awfully touchy about this.


----------



## Deftsound (Jan 1, 2008)

xeberus said:


> *
> 
> ugh accidentally hit enter, these are direct quotes from benjamin franklin. Einstein was not religious either, a good amount of the founders of America were deist not christian.


Really? I seem to remember from my history class that the pilgrims coming from England to America on the Mayflower were escaping Catholic rule to form their own sect of christianity also known as Lutherans, based on Martin Luther's theory, "Luther taught that salvation is not from good works, but a free gift of God, received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority of the pope of the Roman Catholic Church." 

America was formed upon pilgrim seperatists wanting to escape the wrath of the catholic church to practice their own form of christianity, "With their religion oppressed by the English Church and government,[5] the small party of religious Puritan separatists who comprised about half of the passengers on the ship desired a life where they could practice their religion freely. This symbol of religious freedom resonates in US society"

Many of the founders may have been deist, but fundamentally, America was founded on religious principles....


----------



## Biowza (May 22, 2007)

Deftsound said:


> Really? I seem to remember from my history class that the pilgrims coming from England to America on the Mayflower were escaping Catholic rule to form their own sect of christianity also known as Lutherans, based on Martin Luther's theory, "Luther taught that salvation is not from good works, but a free gift of God, received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority of the pope of the Roman Catholic Church."
> 
> America was formed upon pilgrim seperatists wanting to escape the wrath of the catholic church to practice their own form of christianity, "With their religion oppressed by the English Church and government,[5] the small party of religious Puritan separatists who comprised about half of the passengers on the ship desired a life where they could practice their religion freely. This symbol of religious freedom resonates in US society"
> 
> Many of the founders may have been deist, but fundamentally, *America was founded on religious principles....*


You are so wrong here It's not even funny. I really hope you aren't from the USA, that would be embarrassing for your sake.


----------



## Deftsound (Jan 1, 2008)

Biowza said:


> "Understand the christian religion" oh that's rich. I'd actually make a bet that 90% of 'Christians' haven't read the bible. Have you read it cover-to-cover? Don't think so. Christians like yourself adore the bible because without reading it you can say "X is true and the world of god while Y is just 'open for interpretation'"
> 
> 
> Geez...I just don't know where to start. It's a Gallup poll (one of the most respected pollsters in the world), questioning people from 137 countries about how important religion is in their life. I don't know what you're talking about hamburgers or something...I'm willing to say that you've never done any science in your life, or if you did you weren't very good at it.
> ...


Your right, and I'd like to make a bet that 90% of people who claim to be christians arent really christians. No, I have not read the Entire bible. But i know enough of it to argue my point, and obviously a little more than you do. You don't know me, therefor you have no idea how much of the bible ive read, this to me tells me that you are just wanting to put a label on me and attack christianity as a whole. Were you raped as a young child? You sound very angry...relax bro, no one is forcing religion down your throat, im just defending the fighters who want to thank god. 

I've done a little science and believe it or not im Not one of those christians thats opposed to science or evolution. I have a 4 year degree from texas a&m. I'm not stupid and I do know what im talking about so i don't appreciate you degrading me. 

You sound like you're just really angry overall, maybe you need some counseling or a real stiff drink, maybe a joint...seriously relax no one is attacking you. 

.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

Deftsound said:


> Really? I seem to remember from my history class that the pilgrims coming from England to America on the Mayflower were escaping Catholic rule to form their own sect of christianity also known as Lutherans, based on Martin Luther's theory, "Luther taught that salvation is not from good works, but a free gift of God, received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority of the pope of the Roman Catholic Church."
> 
> America was formed upon pilgrim seperatists wanting to escape the wrath of the catholic church to practice their own form of christianity, "With their religion oppressed by the English Church and government,[5] the small party of religious Puritan separatists who comprised about half of the passengers on the ship desired a life where they could practice their religion freely. This symbol of religious freedom resonates in US society"
> 
> Many of the founders may have been deist, but fundamentally, America was founded on religious principles....


So you admit that all the facts you have said so far were completely wrong and just felt like saying them because they fall in line with your side of an argument? 

Now you want to give me a history lesson? All a person has to do to see that America was not founded on christianity is to take a look at the constitution, the declaration of independence of the treaty of tripoli.

"The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers." 

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Article 11 of the treaty, it is very clear our founding fathers wanted nothing more than a government divorced from religion.


----------



## Deftsound (Jan 1, 2008)

Biowza said:


> You are so wrong here It's not even funny. I really hope you aren't from the USA, that would be embarrassing for your sake.


REally? I quoted this from Wikipedia. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower

Na, I don't get emberassed over some stupid ass forum on the internet. Its not real life bro...its the internet


----------



## Biowza (May 22, 2007)

Deftsound said:


> REally? I quoted this from Wikipedia.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower
> 
> Na, I don't get emberassed over some stupid ass forum on the internet. Its not real life bro...its the internet


See....



xeberus said:


> So you admit that all the facts you have said so far were completely wrong and just felt like saying them because they fall in line with your side of an argument?
> 
> Now you want to give me a history lesson? All a person has to do to see that America was not founded on christianity is to take a look at the constitution, the declaration of independence of the treaty of tripoli.
> 
> ...


Treaty of Tripoli, Constitution, Declaration of Independance, etc. You are so very very wrong Mr Deftsound. What I find weird is that I know more about your country than you do.


----------



## name goes here (Aug 15, 2007)

I don't think England was Catholic when you lot's ancestors were settling America.

Fighters are often religious because they need to have a massive amount of self belief, is my guess.

It's true Hughes never says, 'I lost, I imagine God wanted me to lose, and for Thiago to win, because he is a more devout Christian than me'.

Also Deftsound and Fredfish are tards - and very convenient for each other


----------



## Deftsound (Jan 1, 2008)

Biowza said:


> See....
> 
> 
> Treaty of Tripoli, Constitution, Declaration of Independance, etc. You are so very very wrong Mr Deftsound. What I find weird is that I know more about your country than you do.


haha ok bro you win. No point in arguing with you.


----------



## Deftsound (Jan 1, 2008)

name goes here said:


> Also Deftsound and Fredfish are tards - and very convenient for each other


lol ok :thumb02:


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

MMAforum presents : "The history of Religion"

This thread is a proper microcosm of the real world that we live in and it's handle on religion. It's quite beautiful and ironic. 




... also, it has so little to do with the UFC any more that I'm bored.


----------



## Light_Speed (Jun 3, 2009)

ya diego sanchez gets very religous after fights..but brazil and mexica are pretty religous countries so i expect it. personally im raised orthodox christian but i dont really believe in religion because for the main part religion was used especially christian and muslim to controll the masses.. but i do believe in a god or atleast some kind of higher power.. thats why i hate athiests..usually there dumb people aswell who pretend to be smart..or think they are smart. one thing that is real is karma.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Lightspeed, your bridge is empty with out you


----------



## Couchwarrior (Jul 13, 2007)

I guess part of the explanation for so many UFC fighter being extremely religious are that so many of them are Brazilians or Americans of low education, but it still seems weird and awkward to me when they use most of their post fight interview to tell everybody how Jesus helped them train.

I think it would be ok to briefly thank god or something if that really is what's on the fighter's mind, but any more than that fits better into a revival meeting than a sports event imo. With god being all-hearing and stuff, you shouldn't need a microphone in order to thank him. I prefer guys like Rich Franklin who reportedly is very religious, but actually talks about fighting instead when somebody puts a mic in front of him.

A thing I've been thinking of: I wonder what it feels like for the people who helped a fighter train for his fight, when he claims in his post fight interview that he owes everything to some fantasy creature instead of them. Seems pretty disrespectful to me.


----------



## out 4 the count (Oct 13, 2008)

This is a subject that really annoys me too.

Why thank God? Do they really think that it was the lord that helped them rather than their years of training? What happens if both fighters are deeply religious? One of them has to lose, then where was his God?

Ultimately, there might be a God or there might not be. But by attributing anything to God you're simply posing the even greater question of who or what created God? And then the question who created the thing that created God. It never ends.

Somewhere along the line you have to accept something came from nothing, and if you can accept that, then you can accept that there is probably no God.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

out 4 the count said:


> Somewhere along the line you have to accept something came from nothing, and if you can accept that, then you can accept that there is probably no God.


... and what if people choose to call that something, "god"?


----------



## out 4 the count (Oct 13, 2008)

Soojooko said:


> ... and what if people choose to call that something, "god"?


Then we're not at issue.

They don't thank "nothing", they thank "God" in the biblical sense. This is what I take issue with.

You're entitled to whatever self beliefs make you happy, it's when it crosses the line into helping make illogical decisions such as surrounds birth control or stem cell research. That's what I take offence at. As well as the minor things like thanking "God" for things "it" clearly had no part in.


----------



## GKY (Jun 3, 2007)

This is going to be a very contreversial thread. I haven't really read through it, and I won't take place in the argument due to rediculous bias towards christianity (in the sense that I am christan). 

However I am repping you for actually having the balls to make this thread.


----------



## Diokhan (Jul 8, 2008)

joshua7789 said:


> Im not a religious dude, but im not completely narrow minded and atheist either. Sorry, i find "devout" atheists to be about as obnoxious as jehovah's witnesses. I dont care who is praying to what god in any circumstances and i dont see why anyone gets worked up about someones prayers or lack of prayers. For some reason I dont see the audience of the UFC getting all worked up if someone went all muslim and started throwing shout outs to allah after a fight, i dont know why, for some reason i just dont think it would be a big deal.


Well said, pretty much like I think.



FredFish1 said:


> "Im not a religious dude, but im not completely narrow minded and atheist either. Sorry, i find "devout" atheists to be about as obnoxious as jehovah's witnesses. I dont care who is praying to what god in any circumstances and i dont see why anyone gets worked up about someones prayers or lack of prayers. For some reason I dont see the audience of the UFC getting all worked up if someone went all muslim and started throwing shout outs to allah after a fight, i dont know why, for some reason i just dont think it would be a big deal."
> 
> Are you trolling? You're not narrow-minded, but find all atheists and jehovas witnesses obnoxious. Oh ok. Yeah that makes sense.
> Figuratively speaking, if you're an atheist you're devout to it, in the sense you refuse all other beliefs.
> ...





FredFish1 said:


> Do you have a serious problem? Try talking in a non condescending manner?
> 
> I didn't say you were worked up...
> 
> ...


Wow, just wow... You start a topic about religion, ask to keep flames at minimum and right after someone who disagrees with your views post you start shooting at him with your retard cannon. Prolly shouldn't have posted at all if you couldn't keep the drama away from a sensitivite topic like this.

Anyway as Joshua Im atheist myself. And like him I too don't care who or what people believe in, because I think that if believing in some higher power etc. gives people hope and helps them to get by on their lives it can't be a bad thing. Likewise I do believe that people have right to believe (or not believe at all) on whatever they want to, so as Joshua said people like "devout" atheists and jehovah's witnesses are people I highly dislike because they just have to keep shoving their beliefs at other people.
What I personally find weird though is the fact that its usually christians (or sub-religions based on same religion) shoving their beliefs at other people. I have lived bit over a year in philippines and 5 months in Rotterdam (a city in Holland) and not once I have had a muslim, jew, buddhist etc. coming to me and asking why I don't believe in same thing with them.

Asians overall seem to be pretty polite when it comes to religion(s) and I infact had a long conversation with a buddhist guy about things like karma and golden rule. I have studied philosphy quite a bit and I found specially Kant's thoughts about "moral philosphy" to match pretty well with daily thoughts of buddhist. 

Anyway, to get back on the original topic; I think Biowza put it pretty well. Education, poor upbringing and the people person spends time with as a child matters most when it comes to one's religion. If you were born in a highly religious family you'd be pretty much forced to learn a thing or 2 about that specific religion. Also if I understood correctly things like evolution aren't exactly welcome topics to many states in US while in most countries in europe (specially EU countries) its pretty much mandatory thing for all students to learn about.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

out 4 the count said:


> Then we're not at issue.
> 
> They don't thank "nothing", they thank "God" in the biblical sense. This is what I take issue with.
> 
> You're entitled to whatever self beliefs make you happy, it's when it crosses the line into helping make illogical decisions such as surrounds birth control or stem cell research. That's what I take offence at. As well as the minor things like thanking "God" for things "it" clearly had no part in.


Agreed.


----------



## Bob Pataki (Jun 16, 2007)

Deftsound said:


> Normally when fighters thank god they are thanking god for their ability or fact that they were healthy and able to fight at the best of their ability and for the fact that no one was seriously injured, not for the win, the same reason people thank god that no one was injured in a serious accident or for the fact that they performed well.
> 
> The fact that you get annoyed by this just shows that you don't truly understand the christian religion and the reason they are thanking god. I can understand this but you are wrong. I guarantee you if you asked marquetd he would agree with me and i know this because I am a fellow Christian. If you are not Christian and/or you know nothing about the religion its easy to come to assumptions.
> 
> Lighten up bro....a fighter can thank whoever they want...who cares????


I see your points and understand the motivation for fighters to thank God but why do we need to hear it? Why does Belfort have a t-shirt made saying Jesus 1st?

I thought religion was a private thing between a man and his God, why is there such a desire to broadcast their faith on camera? Why not just go back and say a prayer or thank God or whatever after the fight? They say it like God is sat in the front row or something, I just find it odd.

I don't particularly care and it doesn't bother me, just curious as to why fighters feel that everyone needs to know they are religious and are thankful to a God. Saying 'thanks to god' does the job and I wouldn't think twice about that, but some fighters go much further than that and thats when I start thinking what are they trying to achieve? 

I wonder if some trainers feel a bit annoyed sometimes when a fighter is more interested in thanking God than those who prepared them for a fight?


----------



## bileye (Feb 7, 2008)

Hey guys, this is a pretty serious topic for me anyway and I dont really wanna get too involved so I passed over the previous pages. I'm an atheist but certainly not close minded. Look where I'm from!

In relation to religion and fighting a comment that Freddie Roache made when training manny pacquiao comes to mind. The pacman is hella religious and Roache makes some interesting remarks about how god has no part in it and its all about hard work and some naturally selected talent.

I tend to believe this. Although I of course see that God can and is, a mental positive for alot of fighters, this still does nothing for Gods validity or existence. Chocolate, Music, money etc can have the same positive effect on other people. Each to their own.

The only time I got slightly annoyed was with Vitor's marketing campaign for Jesus recently and man I love Vitor!


----------



## Light_Speed (Jun 3, 2009)

buddist are the closest to the truth.. and there not really a religion but more of a way of life. how something came out of nothing we are not ready to understand this, but they're is defently more advance civilazations in the universe that are ahead of us and also maybe civilazations who know the truth(logically there would be some that are not close to advanced than us). another thing we all as people are connected telepatically so ultimatly there is somekind of higher power as far as life, we just cant understand it.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Quick question, are there any fighters that are strict atheist or agnostic? 

I know Monson has Anarchy beliefs, but has he ever expressed any anti-religion thoughts?

Yeah I knew this thread would cause a lot of controversial points, and I think there have been some very valid points made from religious, non religious and just observant people, which is great, and was what I was after 

However I have now renounced my atheist views, and follow Light_speed as my new God, his unquestionable wisdom has won me over.


----------



## bileye (Feb 7, 2008)

Light_Speed said:


> buddist are the closest to the truth.. and there not really a religion but more of a way of life. how something came out of nothing we are not ready to understand this, but they're is defently more advance civilazations in the universe that are ahead of us and also maybe civilazations who know the truth(logically there would be some that are not close to advanced than us). another thing we all as people are connected telepatically so ultimatly there is somekind of higher power as far as life, we just cant understand it.


I tend to think that the Scientific method is a way of life. I find the approach to be a noble one. Abolishing anything that is without evidence is a healthy start and having everything subject to peer review while constantly trying to prove a hypothesis false is a beautiful thing.

I think many ideologies throughout the ages have been great but they tend o be hijacked by assholes. You made reference to Buddhism, which I think is very interesting in itself but I constantly see its teachings in the hands of these so called 'new agers' who really pervert any core truth.


----------



## GarethUFC (Sep 12, 2007)

To the OP... why do you give a shit? does it keep you awake at night???


----------



## enufced904 (Jul 17, 2008)

As I have already seen mentioned.. to each his own. 

And what's with all the stereotypes?


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

lmao gareth... really?

Oh, I don't know, how about that I just wanted to know peoples opinions and feelings for what is potentially an interesting topic. You know that's what questions and forums and discussions are for...

So as of this moment for the rest of your life, I don't expect to hear you ask a single question unless it keeps you awake. So why did you ask me why I created this topic? Does it keep you up at night?

See how damn ridiculous and pointless your post was? If you have anything useful to add please do so.

Bileye- I actually really like that way of looking at, I guess in a subjective context you could classify science as a notion of religion. + rep dude.


----------



## enufced904 (Jul 17, 2008)

Soojooko said:


> Now, if a fighter believes in an established religion like Christianity or Islam, and then thanks God for winning a fight, then I have to agree with the OP : Why would God support you and not the other fighter? It seems absurd to me and quite contradictory considering the message that these religions seem to push which is equality and love.


As a Christian, I actually wonder the same thing. I can see a fighter thanking God for having the opportunity to fight. To thank God for winning in this instance, I believe is a lack of understanding of God by the person.


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

I find it somewhat repulsive that there are those that claim religion is for the un-educated. Whether or not I agree has no relevance in this topic. The fact is, you're only demonstrating your own ignorance with such blanket statements that are completely unsupported by actual data.

Furthermore, the concept between being religious and non-religious are essentially the same. The choice to believe a particular conclusion without evidence positively pointing one way or the other. 

At first I was just going to ignore this topic, but I thought, "Hey. Maybe this forum actually has some intelligent discussion taking place." Instead I was disappointed by blatant statements of ignorance. So congratulations to those perpetuating the same qualities they're accusing the religious of being. Because everyone's knows what you believe must certainly be more correct than what another does.


----------



## Biowza (May 22, 2007)

Servatose said:


> I find it somewhat repulsive that there are those that claim religion is for the un-educated. Whether or not I agree has no relevance in this topic. The fact is, you're only demonstrating your own ignorance with such blanket statements that are completely unsupported by actual data.
> 
> Furthermore, the concept between being religious and non-religious are essentially the same. The choice to believe a particular conclusion without evidence positively pointing one way or the other.
> 
> At first I was just going to ignore this topic, but I thought, "Hey. Maybe this forum actually has some intelligent discussion taking place." Instead I was disappointed by blatant statements of ignorance. So congratulations to those perpetuating the same qualities they're accusing the religious of being. Because everyone's knows what you believe must certainly be more correct than what another does.


Did you actually read any of the studies? It is entirely supported by data that those with low intelligence are more drawn to religious belief. You hate it, but that's the way it is. Live with it.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Servatose if you read the articles posted by Biowza there is actually definite correlation. Countries with a lower GDP on the whole, not exclusively have a higher percentage of population following religion. The graphs also seem to be sourced properly and are done with a large enough sample size to warrant interest.

You seem like a subjective person and I created this topic for intelligent rational insight as I must admit I don't know everything, not by a long shot. Hence I posted asking questions. So I'd honestly like to know your thoughts. I clearly stated in the OP this was a controversial topic that will probably induce flaming.


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

Biowza, though it's clear you take habit in vast assumptions, I suppose I'll humor you for a moment. Again, whether or not I dislike or like it is completely irrelevant. Shall I type this again so that you can read it more clearly? Fine, I will. Regardless of what I feel about the issue, my opinion -- just like yours -- is completely irrelevant. Why? Simple, because we have no idea who one another are. And since you seem to enjoy data, I'll expound a bit on what that implies. Since what I feel about the issue is not known, it's therefore assumed to be neutral. However, you're assuming it to be whatever it is you'd like it to. Why? If I had to guess it's probably to make the implication that I am religious, therefore I must be one of those unintelligent, therefore you must be more intelligent than me. But, since I can't be sure either I'll do something you seem incapable of, electing not to assume to know why you'd fancy me "hating it". 

Again, though its apparent you like to think otherwise, you actually have no idea how the topic correlates with me personally, only that I'm disappointed by the lack of intelligence being demonstrated in this thread, that you so claim those who are religious have.

Now onto this map you linked, which again you're looking at with very little reason or intelligence. Worry not, I'll elaborate on why I'm making such statements.

First and foremost I'll address the concept of insufficient data. Another thing (of many) which you seem to be at a lack of ability to understand. All you really did was post a map which had regions of the world highlighted different colors. Each color was supposed to represent the prominence of religion in that region, the darker the color the more prominent the belief. Then, from what I can see was deduced from this collection of data is that due to the fact that poorer, and less educated countries have more prominent religious beliefs, that must mean that the poor and undereducated are drawn to religion. This is faulty logic. Before such a statement can be made, much more information is needed. Think of your map like an incomplete math equation. There isn't enough data gathered to be certain that the answer is correct.

There are in fact several essential steps that this map is lacking, in order to complete a true scientific hypothesis. In fact, I find the posting of the map as a rather novice demonstration of understanding.

I could elaborate for a couple of more paragraphs on what it takes to complete a true hypothesis, but instead I'm going to hope that you'll understand when I simply tell you what this one is lacking. 

Since I'm referring to this map as a mere observation, when I say observation let it be known that I'm referring to the map. 

Variables. What other variables are there that can contribute to the trend in the observation? Well, I can think of plenty. Presence of Media? Government type? Society type? Economic conditions? Available forms of entertainment/amusement? The fact is, you're taking a map with inconclusive variables and wanting it to mean a specific thing, so you interpret it as such. Rather than using The Scientific Method to accurately represent data.

Furthermore, after these variables are considered, that can either offset or contribute to the original observation, experiments are needed to test whether or not these variables are actively contributing to the observation, none of which is stated or even mentioned. Therefore making the map as irrelevant as either of our opinions.

Conclusively, I can therefore say that not only is this map incomplete (therefore inaccurate), but also I can say that so is your reasoning and logic for not realizing such.


----------



## rogi (Aug 26, 2007)

xeberus said:


> Yea, I've definitely met my share of D-bag atheists. What annoys me the most about them is how they carry their huge banners and signs outside of bars/clubs/universities/medical clinics to bash others for wasting their lives and when they force their science on us. The only thing worse are the ones that knock on your door at 7am on saturday waking you up to tell you about evolution. Nothing wrong with a persons beliefs as long as they don't infringe on anothers rights.


yeah..it's 'their' science. because what has science done for me.


----------



## ericr (Sep 13, 2006)

out 4 the count said:


> This is a subject that really annoys me too.
> 
> Why thank God? Do they really think that it was the lord that helped them rather than their years of training? What happens if both fighters are deeply religious? One of them has to lose, then where was his God?
> 
> ...


I'm guessing many of them actually do believe God helped, and thus they are publicly thanking him. Tito annoys me, does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to talk(even as much as we might not want him to)? Just because you don't agree with what the fighter says shouldn't mean he can't say it. My biggest problem is that "religious" people usually says things that are personal or even uplifting(regardless if you believe it or not), while atheist's usually try to tear down the beliefs of others. I am all for a good debate, but when it comes down to it, they have every right to say what they want in the octagon, and who are we to complain about it. If you don't like it, just move on, simple as that.

To me, people who can't look at the human body and believe there is a divine creator are biased and/or ignorant. But that's your right to believe that way, to voice your belief and to live your life in that belief. Just like it is religious peoples right to do the same according to their belief, even if you think it's crazy.

I'm fine with people sharing their beliefs, there is an atheist at work that we talk all the time about why he thinks religion is false, and why I think it isn't. It never gets out of hand because we both respect each others right to live and believe the way we want.


----------



## ericr (Sep 13, 2006)

xeberus said:


> Yea, I've definitely met my share of D-bag atheists. What annoys me the most about them is how they carry their huge banners and signs outside of bars/clubs/universities/medical clinics to bash others for wasting their lives and when they force their science on us. The only thing worse are the ones that knock on your door at 7am on saturday waking you up to tell you about evolution. Nothing wrong with a persons beliefs as long as they don't infringe on anothers rights.


Yep, there are D-bags from both sides of the spectrum, and I would have to say that the person waking you up at 7am saturday morning is probably religious more often than atheist. I don't mind people going around sharing their beliefs, but they need to be respectful of others, not 7 in the morning and when asked to leave they do so immediately. I don't think its the "science" of atheist that are the problem, most religious people believe in science, just not the false claim that science somehow proves God to be false. Science can't prove God, so they say that he is false, yet Science can't prove a lot of things, science can't make us travel at the speed of light, they can't teleport us to the moon, they can't even cure cancer. So why would we even begin to think that they could prove God(if he existed). I am all for good science, it has done a lot of beneficial things for the world. I'm just not for people who try to use science falsely to say God is not real.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

You can't watch a home run derby without some crackhead pushing his zombie lord on you. So really is it that surprising that MMA fighters are the same. People believe in fairy tales because either they are mentally insane or they were programmed to do so by adults since birth and were too stupid to overcome it. It really doesn't help that we live in a society without nuance either. Getcha spectacular images up son and let your skull collapse from the void where your brain should be.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Servatose, the variables you listed all have a direct link to the relative GDP and equality of wealth within a country for example entertainment provided I.e TV,Sports centres, recreational centres,cable all are more avaiable to those with a higher domestic income. Government clearly plays a part in the factoring of development of churches, national holidays, advertising and a sense of patriotism and religion instilled in the society and community.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not taking that graph as hard proof by any means, but it draws up interesting correlation and actually I believe the sample size to be reasonable within doubt. I don't think the map is incomplete because it's a simple analysis. It's not looking at the depth of limitations and as such will never have a control sample. Instead it's a large surveyed, and I believe accurately displayed graph. Although you can take the facts and use them as anecdotal evidence to imply something else- which makes this whole thing tricky.

Even without statistical analysis the less economically developed countries on the surface are more religious. Think Central Northern and especially Western Africa Africa has the highest percentage of Aids, due to them following the word of the Pope I.E "contraception is bad." Obviously other factors were involved, condoms cost money and weren't easily available- but this is linked back to the relative poverty and people opting not to purchase them. I'm Filipino my self and from a young age noticed an incredibly deep affinity for Christianity there; much more than any other country I've ever visited. And I consider my self fairly well travelled. I also think there was sufficient data supporting the theory. 

Now I still believe it is a theory as you quite rightly stated, and a theory is a hypothesis which is waiting to be proven wrong. However the more I do my own research, the more I'm finding links which are proving 2nd hand indirect links between the relative wealth and percentage of the population who actively follow a religion. There seems to be a trend of positive correlation. Obviously with something of this magnitude and sensitivity there will never be a formulated rule. As is Human nature. So in your eyes Servatose what would I need to present to you, not necessarily to sway your opinion with fact, but to convince you that their are direct links. (I'll obviously post some of my more reputable sources later, I'm off out to in a minute)


----------



## sworddemon (Feb 4, 2007)

1. Einstein didn't believe the same God that Marquardt and Belfort always thank (Jesus)

2. Go youtube some Sam Harris videos


----------



## ericr (Sep 13, 2006)

FredFish1 said:


> Servatose, the variables you listed all have a direct link to the relative GDP and equality of wealth within a country for example entertainment provided I.e TV,Sports centres, recreational centres,cable all are more avaiable to those with a higher domestic income. Government clearly plays a part in the factoring of development of churches, national holidays, advertising and a sense of patriotism and religion instilled in the society and community.
> 
> Now don't get me wrong, I'm not taking that graph as hard proof by any means, but it draws up interesting correlation and actually I believe the sample size to be reasonable within doubt. I don't think the map is incomplete because it's a simple analysis. It's not looking at the depth of limitations and as such will never have a control sample. Instead it's a large surveyed, and I believe accurately displayed graph. Although you can take the facts and use them as anecdotal evidence to imply something else- which makes this whole thing tricky.
> 
> ...


I can agree that the poor have a higher rate of religion, and many most likely do it because the need something in their life. That doesn't mean everyone is that way, and it definitely does not mean that religion is false just because some people that believe in it don't do it for the right reasons. I think a couple other factors also play a part in it. Since we have been generalizing, I hope you can bare with my generalizing here.

- The richer you are, the more independent you tend to be, which in turn makes you more turned off by servitude. Belief in God puts you in a sense of servitude to God, and the more independent you are, the harder it is.

- People with more money usually can afford to do a lot more things, they have more toys, they can go more places. With all these things, there is less time for God.

- If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right. Many people who have money feel life is good, why would you need God when I'm already doing just fine. Now studies can be argued for or against, but many studies show that people with lots of money are less happy than those without.

I'm not posting this to prove God exists, I'm posting it in relation to the world map of religion, and to show just because poor people tend to believe in God, doesn't mean that it's just because they are poor and have nothing else to believe in.


----------



## Hotspur (May 28, 2009)

> America was formed upon pilgrim seperatists wanting to escape the wrath of the catholic church to practice their own form of christianity, "With their religion oppressed by the English Church and government,[5] the small party of religious Puritan separatists who comprised about half of the passengers on the ship desired a life where they could practice their religion freely. This symbol of religious freedom resonates in US society"


LMAO you need to read a History Book mate,the Catholic Church had been decimated in England by Henry VIII over 70 years before any Pilgrim sailed to the New World.
The Pilgrims were not 'fleeing' England because they were persecuted,they were Fleeing the country so they could have the Right to Persecute!
Stoic bunch those Puritans,none to accepting of the other faiths.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Hotspur said:


> LMAO you need to read a History Book mate,the Catholic Church had been decimated in England by Henry VIII over a hundred years before any Pilgrim sailed to the New World.
> The Pilgrims were not 'fleeing' England because they were persecuted,they were Fleeing the country so they could have the Right to Persecute!
> Stoic bunch those Puritans,none to accepting of the other faiths.


Not to mention that the truth you just typed up also relates to why freedom of religion is an impossible status. Organized religions are power structures with the goals to aggressively indoctrinate and oppress everyone else. So with that fact you aren't ever allowed freedom to have your own belief sets as these power structures will manipulate laws, the media, and communities to enact their agenda, essentially imposing their will upon you.


----------



## Tomislav III (Aug 22, 2009)

FredFish1 said:


> I just want to say, I'm not trying to cause any religious arguements or provoke hatred and I'm fully aware this is a pretty sensitive topic. So feel free to move this to the smack talk section or just close the thread admins.
> 
> On to the point, are most fighters religious? After many victories they thank God (recently off the top of my head Belfort and Marquardt), I personally get slightly irritated, but perhaps that's my own atheist bias. What if both fighters were praying to the same God? You won the fight, not God bestowing you with powers, that's my opinion.
> 
> ...


Religion is mostly tied to nationality.


Fedor, Cro-Cop, and many of the other slavic fighters will either be Russian/Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic - in the case of Cro-Cop.

Fighters from South America will be Roman Catholic.


In the US, it's a toss up. For all the talk about American religious devotion, I don't really see it. 

It's not tied in enough to the nationalism of Americans like it is to Hrvats or Russians.



osmium said:


> You can't watch a home run derby without some crackhead pushing his zombie lord on you. So really is it that surprising that MMA fighters are the same. People believe in fairy tales because either they are mentally insane or they were programmed to do so by adults since birth and were too stupid to overcome it. It really doesn't help that we live in a society without nuance either. Getcha spectacular images up son and let your skull collapse from the void where your brain should be.


Or maybe religion just works for them? You ever think of this?

A lot of people find comfort in religion - I do. You may think it's nothing more than quaint nonsense, but to those who are religious, it's a big part of our lives and we like that it's a big part of our lives. 

If Belfort wants to thank God, let him thank God. I think it's sweet that he does that. I'm happy he's found comfort in his religion and he looks to God - real or not - as something that helps him in his life to be a better person.


If you want to praise Richard Dawkins or Jeff Monson wants to praise Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, I think that is just as acceptable. Why don't you?


----------



## Nefilim777 (Jun 24, 2009)

Biowza said:


> Most fighters aren't particuarly smart or come from poor upbringings. These two things are the breeding ground for religion. Many studies have found that lack of intelligence and poor upbringing makes you much more susceptible to religious belief. This is why you don't see a great deal of religious scientists and the like. I'm sure someone will say "OMG LOOK AT PERSON X, HE'S SMART AND RELIGIOUS". These people obviously don't understand what I'm saying.


I'm 24, have 3 degrees, and come from a pretty well to do middle class background, I believe in God... Although I agree to a point I don't believe that to be a totally accurate comment..


----------



## Rationalist (Oct 15, 2006)

How ridiculous would it be if Vitor came out with an I love *Zeus* shirt? People of all faiths would think he is crazy. Just like I think he is crazy for coming out with the Jesus shirt.



> To me, people who can't look at the human body and believe there is a divine creator are biased and/or ignorant.


Why did a divine creator give us a blind spot in our eye??
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html

Also note that Christians once argued that the sun rotated around the earth. Science proved them wrong.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Tomislav III said:


> Or maybe religion just works for them? You ever think of this?
> 
> A lot of people find comfort in religion - I do. You may think it's nothing more than quaint nonsense, but to those who are religious, it's a big part of our lives and we like that it's a big part of our lives.
> 
> ...


It isn't quaint nonsense it is dangerous stupidity. Faith is validation of ignorance it is the reason why women and homosexuals are still abused and oppressed within the mainstream of the American society. It is the driving force behind stopping the government from doing anything about global warming and really assaulting any kind of science that counters mythology. It corrupts our political system giving mentally retarded people who desperately want an apocalypse and think humans were riding on the backs of dinosaurs power they aren't qualified to hold. My world views don't lead to people being assaulted, oppressed, and/or murdered that is the difference.


----------



## Hotspur (May 28, 2009)

Christopher Hitchens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k


If you havent read the Dawkins book 'The God delusion' here's the BBC documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPhHo66GAjY


----------



## ericr (Sep 13, 2006)

Rationalist said:


> How ridiculous would it be if Vitor came out with an I love *Zeus* shirt? People of all faiths would think he is crazy. Just like I think he is crazy for coming out with the Jesus shirt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just because "Christians" claim something doesn't mean its true, same with science. Science is changing all the time, things are being proven and unproven all the time to contradict certain scientific findings. The post I made was in regard that they can believe what they want, and seeing how science can't prove God doesn't exist I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on by bashing them. 

As far as the eye is concerned, there are many questions we can ask related to that, which goes off of religious/spiritual beliefs. So since we aren't completely perfect that means there is no God? Nice try, if there is an all powerful being, his understanding would far outweight ours, no need for us to question everything we don't agree with.

If someone came out with a Zeus shirt I wouldn't care one way or the other, the guy is welcome to believe in WHATEVER he wants. Now if he was to try to force us to pray to Zeus, that is another story.


----------



## enufced904 (Jul 17, 2008)

osmium said:


> It isn't quaint nonsense it is dangerous stupidity. Faith is validation of ignorance it is the reason why women and homosexuals are still abused and oppressed within the mainstream of the American society. It is the driving force behind stopping the government from doing anything about global warming and really assaulting any kind of science that counters mythology. It corrupts our political system giving mentally retarded people who desperately want an apocalypse and think humans were riding on the backs of dinosaurs power they aren't qualified to hold. My world views don't lead to people being assaulted, oppressed, and/or murdered that is the difference.


This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. Humans being humans are the reason why the world is in its current state.


----------



## ericr (Sep 13, 2006)

osmium said:


> It isn't quaint nonsense it is dangerous stupidity. Faith is validation of ignorance it is the reason why women and homosexuals are still abused and oppressed within the mainstream of the American society. It is the driving force behind stopping the government from doing anything about global warming and really assaulting any kind of science that counters mythology. It corrupts our political system giving mentally retarded people who desperately want an apocalypse and think humans were riding on the backs of dinosaurs power they aren't qualified to hold. My world views don't lead to people being assaulted, oppressed, and/or murdered that is the difference.


Wow Osmium. I really like a lot of the posts you make regarding MMA, but I'm pretty shocked to see such ridiculous statements. Have people done horrible things in the name of Religion and Faith. YES. Have religions stood for horrible things and committed atrocities. YES. But so has people coming from ALL walks of life. Scientists created the nuclear bomb that killed hundreds of thousands, and has the potential to kill billions in the future. I think the real difference is you don't believe the way other people do and so you have to bash on them. Kind of funny when you said your views "don't lead to people being assaulted, oppressed, and/or murdered ", yet I name the nuke, and then we have your verbal assault, and in todays world religious people are being oppressed whether you see it or not.


----------



## JackAbraham34 (Jun 30, 2009)

I believe it is mostly to do with upbringing, but not dependent on. For example my parents are both christians but have never pushed me to go to church, read the bible, not swear etc. I find myself however being very religious. More so than my parents. and if the earth was like 1 degree out of line we'd all be dead. So you can't tell me that there isn't a God. There was just some big bang an we landed smack bang in the only place we could survive ? Not trying to start a religious argument btw, I just think most people (including fighters) find it easier to believe in a God than evolution etc.


----------



## Nefilim777 (Jun 24, 2009)

A lot of people here are presuming that the God or divine creator which is being discussed as that of the mythos of major religious practice. Fact of the matter is, people, whether they're Dawkins or the Pope or just an average person cannot prove the existence of God. This is where faith and belief enter the equation. I agree that the hard line sects of Christianity and Islam can be incredibly prejudice towards 'difference', i.e. homosexuals, non-believers etc. But to presume that all of those of faith are ignorant of these things is ignorance in itself. My grandmother is 84 and has been a devout Roman Catholic her whole life, yet when poised with the question of homosexuality she believes that God created all equal and loves everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, even though the literal doctrine of her church preaches against it. Personally I have no time for Dawkins, and I think he should stick to Quantum physics. When the non-believer enters the realm of the faithful and applies science [within major belief structures that is] they are always going to appear as thogh they've come out on top.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

Nefilim777 said:


> I'm 24, have 3 degrees, and come from a pretty well to do middle class background, I believe in God... Although I agree to a point I don't believe that to be a totally accurate comment..


Well he isn't stating that it's a law that if you're considered smart and well educated that you won't be religious. He's saying that there is a strong correlation between the two though. Generally speaking, countries with a low level of education and a higher poverty percentage per capita have higher levels of devout religious people. 

Aside from this, there's a strong difference in believing in God and being a devout follower of religion. A lot of people in the US believe in God, but are not devout followers. Being a good person because you think it will send you to hell if you aren't doesn't qualify you as "devout" IMO. A devout person goes to church every day there is service, pledges their life to God through missionary and charity work. Not to mention going through all of the rituals that come with different respective religions (I.E. going to church every Sunday, praying before bed for most Christians, praying so many times a day for Muslims etc). A lot of the religion here is laid back, even most of our extremely religious sect pales in comparison to the extremely religious sects in Haiti and the Middle East, Africa and the like. 

Basically, the correlation is still there, regardless of a single person's religious belief, in one way or another. I'm not assuming you're not devout in the ways I have described, but I'm saying as a whole, America isn't. There are a few small sectors of the religious in America that are, immigrants not withstanding, as they usually bring their religious beliefs with them and are still in that "extreme" side of religion for another generation or so, but even then it tailors off. Look at Muslim Americans as compared to their counter parts in the Middle East and you'll see what I'm talking about. Muslim Americans that I've seen still wear the garb, but many woman don't walk around with their faces covered and their shrouds are colored and decorated. While in the Middle East they must have all skin except their eyes covered and the shroud must be black.




Another thing I want to clarify, I'm a Theorist by religion. This means I do not believe in organized religion, I have my own and my own beliefs. I think that every person has their own personal "God" they believe in (or should at least have a personal one) and that people following organized sects of religion do it for reasons more out of appeasement and availability than anything else. Seriously, think about it, why are most people who are Christians Christian? Over 90% of the time I'm willing to bet, as with the quoted poster I'm willing to wager this, that their parents/grandparents etc are following Christians. So from an early age you have a religion put in your face, and you go to church with your family every Sunday etc and soon enough you believe in it. I was like that for the longest time so this is from personal experience too, not just a generalization. I live in the Bible Belt so I see this happen all the time and it kind of sickens me to see religion forced upon a person as such. I think religion should be found or though of, not presented in any way. It's why I believe what I believe, because I was raised a Christian but I see the inherent flaws and the hate mongering that tends to go with it around here, from first hand experience*. My sister-in-law recently "came out" and it ******* ASTOUNDS me the difference it's made in her life. She (as with the rest of her family) was extremely popular around here (small town, big last name. Anyone who's lived in a rural community knows what i mean). Her dad is fire fighter's chief or whatever, her grandfather owns half the town etc. But after coming out she gets all this _hate_ from everyone just because of that. She hasn't changed at all as a person, but now no one wants anything to do with her. She's getting hate messages on myspace, her family is alienating her and everyone keeps telling her "You're going to Hell!!!" and "You can still be saved!" all the way down to passive aggressive bullshit like "I know this is just a phase and you don't want this blahblah." 

But I digress, my main point is that there is still the correlation between intelligence and poverty with religion. Even if it's not with you personally, it is with the majority.



As with fighters, I'm willing to bet it's either appeasement of relatives, adrenaline or just a generalize statement. I'm basically an atheist with slight differences and I say "God Dammit" and "thank God" a lot, but that doesn't mean it means anything. Also, you have to remember that most of the United States is religious. Maybe not a strong religious, but even so, there's a little bit. A lot of Brazil is very religious, as are many other countries, so that's kind of where it stems from. I have no problem with fighters thanking God and things of that nature. Sure, sometimes when I think about it it makes me laugh a little inside because I personally think that believing in a flying man in the sky who watches over us and gives us the power to persevere is kind of silly, but it's nothing against them if it gives them the confidence they need to win. 



/long post is loooooong


----------



## Nefilim777 (Jun 24, 2009)

TraMaI said:


> Well he isn't stating that it's a law that if you're considered smart and well educated that you won't be religious. He's saying that there is a strong correlation between the two though. Generally speaking, countries with a low level of education and a higher poverty percentage per capita have higher levels of devout religious people.


No I realise that, but at the same time it seems to of the opinion that educated people are not religious, although I propose that science itself is now followed with almost religious vigour.


----------



## Rationalist (Oct 15, 2006)

ericr said:


> As far as the eye is concerned, there are many questions we can ask related to that, which goes off of religious/spiritual beliefs. So since we aren't completely perfect that means there is no God? Nice try, if there is an all powerful being, his understanding would far outweight ours, no need for us to question everything we don't agree with.


This was directed mainly towards Christians, because the bible states god created man in his own image (PERFECT), but sin corrupted us. Sin did not cause our eyes to be wired backwards causing the blindspot. Evolution did this.

I cannot disprove god just like you cannot disprove that a teacup is floating around in space or that magical unicorns exist. 



ericr said:


> If someone came out with a Zeus shirt I wouldn't care one way or the other, the guy is welcome to believe in WHATEVER he wants. Now if he was to try to force us to pray to Zeus, that is another story.


I wouldn't care either. I would just think they are delusional.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Why is it so hard for believers to just say these words “I don’t know”!

In many of my discussions with those who believe in one sort of a god or another the discussion always goes to the human body and the earth. The questions they pose are “Where did we come from if there is no god?” “How did the earth get here if there is no god?”

The simple answer is, I DON’T KNOW! It is okay to not have the answer to that. Nobody knows! But science gives us clues to draw a conclusion upon.

I can’t prove that a god does not exist!

There is a reason in the English language that you are not grammatically allowed the sentence above (double negative). It is scientifically impossible to prove that something does not exist. The inability to prove something does not exist is not evidence of existence!

I can not prove to anybody that a 20 foot tall baby does not exist, but logic and science would suggest it and anybody capable of deductive reasoning would understand it to be false. So why is that argument even thought to be valid?

So what proof is there that there is a god? NONE! There is a lot of proof that refutes that majority of religious beliefs. So, for me, when science gives me clues to what the truth may be and religion just gives me a book of fiction full of scientific impossibilities I choose to believe what I have evidence of.

I also do agree that religion can be, and has proven to be dangerous. It has had and continues to have quite a bit of negative effects on the world. 

The nuclear bomb argument is just insane. The bomb was not built because of a lack of belief in a god. And because one does not believe in a god that does not mean they do not value life.

I think I value life much more than believers. Those who believe think after they are dead they move on to a “paradise” of one sort or another. They continue on in a better state than they are in now. I believe when death occurs that is the absolute end. So life to me is the only thing!

Self-sufficiency is rather important to me as well. So the most annoying thing I ever hear is “Its in gods hands”! No, my dear, it is not. It is in yours! The consequences will be a result of your actions/inactions not because of a puppet master of sorts~


----------



## rogi (Aug 26, 2007)

DanTheJu said:


> Why is it so hard for believers to just say these words “I don’t know”!
> 
> In many of my discussions with those who believe in one sort of a god or another the discussion always goes to the human body and the earth. The questions they pose are “Where did we come from if there is no god?” “How did the earth get here if there is no god?”
> 
> ...


omg that's the most ignorant thing i've ever read. your science is just as evil as religion. if it wasn't for science we wouldn't have guns to kill people with. without the bible how would you know how to be good? can you prove there is no god? i didn't think so.


----------



## Tomislav III (Aug 22, 2009)

osmium said:


> It isn't quaint nonsense it is dangerous stupidity. Faith is validation of ignorance it is the reason why women and homosexuals are still abused and oppressed within the mainstream of the American society.


I think you're overplaying the amount of "oppression" against women and homosexuals that exists in western societies.


That said, I don't think faith has anything to do with oppression. It's about a combination of institutions and people in them.

Flawed people who proclaim faith do not say much about faith itself.


I think faith is a beautiful thing. I read a lot of Soren Kierkegaard - the father of existentialism - and I'm convinced more of the passion and love that faith gives people and others.

Personally, for all the terrible things I've done in my life, it comforts me greatly and helps me continue to be a better person now believing that Christ will always love me no matter what my past was like.


For me, and many people, religion is a very personal thing. It's not so much about telling others what they should do as it is about living life for a new reason.



I think your concern is much more political than religious; I think you're conflating the two.


For most people, I believe, religion does two basic things. Comforts and serves as a means to identify oneself by.

I am Hrvat, so my religion does a lot to give me a sense of identity with my people. Also, my religion gives me a great deal of humbleness and enjoyment. I love very much to listen to music and look at the art depicting scenes that touch me emotionally.


I acknowledge fully well that none of this means anything to you and it's why I don't "force it down your throat." That said, I think you would also be well served to be more respectful of the beliefs of other people. I am not saying I can prove it to you. I cannot prove it to myself. I don't want to. I am comfortable with being a man of faith. Most other religious people are likewise comfortable with that. Why can't you just be comfortable with being someone without religion and leaving it at that? Why must you disrespect so much?


----------



## rogi (Aug 26, 2007)

Tomislav III said:


> ...
> 
> Personally, for all the terrible things I've done in my life, it comforts me greatly and helps me continue to be a better person now believing that Christ will always love me no matter what my past was like.


I couldn't agree more. I also think that people who don't believe in god, are basicaly screwed, because if they did, whenever they would do terrible things, there is a chance to repent and ask for forgiveness and all will be forgiven.


----------



## YOURMOMWASHERE (Sep 20, 2009)

LOL, I knew from the 1st post this thread would turn into a religion shitstorm. Well heres my 2 cents.

First off, im an agnostic. I believe in a creator, don't really worship it though. I also find that there are annoying religious people but at the same time annoying know it all atheists.

Nobody knows the truth yet, either side cannot be proven or disproven for the most part. Just let people believe what they want to as long as it doesn't hurt you.

As far as religion in the UFC, I don't mind it...but some fighters take it way too far *cough* diego sanchez *cough*


----------



## Tomislav III (Aug 22, 2009)

DanTheJu said:


> Why is it so hard for believers to just say these words “I don’t know”!


Because for most people it has nothing to do with knowing.


It's harder to understand if you're coming from a stoic rational perspective, but let me try to explain.


Religious people, like myself, fully embrace the fact that religion is mostly emotional. We believe because we feel it. We don't know it. We don't care if we don't know it. We feel it. 


When I hear a beautiful hymn. Or hear a sermon about Christ's love, I can't fully describe to you the feeling I get. Shivers go up my back. My heart begins to pump. I am overwhelmed with a great feeling of earnestness. Like when you think a girl you are in love with is about to tell you she's leaving, but actually only tells you how much she truly loves you and that she wants to be yours forever. 

It is a powerful feeling. As though the hand of the holy ghost were wiping away your tears and lifting your head up. 


This is the primary reason I think most people truly believe in God as they grow older and become more exposed to different perspectives. Sure, we begin belief because our parents do, but as we grow up and truly find religion we stay or go based on what we feel. 



Right or wrong isn't what matters to me. It's how the faith in Christ makes me feel personally.


----------



## Rationalist (Oct 15, 2006)

Tomislav III said:


> Because for most people it has nothing to do with knowing.
> 
> 
> It's harder to understand if you're coming from a stoic rational perspective, but let me try to explain.
> ...


It might not matter to you, but it has caused a lot of grief and hardship for the gay community.


----------



## YOURMOMWASHERE (Sep 20, 2009)

Tomislav III said:


> Because for most people it has nothing to do with knowing.
> 
> 
> It's harder to understand if you're coming from a stoic rational perspective, but let me try to explain.
> ...


I can repsect that, if only more christians were like you. I live in the south east America..over here its like

" HELL YEAH IM A MOTHER FUCKIN CHRISTIAN! " * goes off and beats his wife then touches his kids *

Anyway, I respect all religions and I hate atheists who talk down on people for having faith. If that's what you need to get by in life and it makes you happy, then by all means please practice it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Walter (Jun 22, 2009)

I've thought about this too, why most of the top fighters - GSP, Anderson Silva, Fedor, Diego Sanchez, Marquardt, and if I'm not mistaking, Brock, Machida, really, most of the top guys are religios, in that they can be seen saying a prayer before a fight and often thanking a higher power afterwards.

One explanation that has come up is they come from poor uneducated backgrounds, and while that may be true, I have to wonder wether there is something about believing in a higher power that gives them strength, to keep training and to keep pushing their limits, and to perform to the best of their abilities.

Does anyone know TOP athletes that have declared they do not believe in God ?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

YOURMOMWASHERE said:


> Anyway, I respect all religions and I hate atheists who talk down on people for having faith. If that's what you need to get by in life and it makes you happy, then by all means please practice it. :thumbsup:


While I think a lot of atheists find religion about as silly as believing in leprechauns, they usually don't get too up in arms about it unless that religion starts affecting their life- such as legislating religion and religious morals.

Let's keep in mind that up until the mid 1900's teachers in many public schools could still force children to pray to Jebus, even children that came from another religion or had no belief in religion. The bible was taught in many public schools. Atheist activists are the ones that ended that.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

My religious prefrence is indiffernce due to a lack of proof for on either side. My problem with atheists lately (just to warn you, this is a huge generalization) is that they seem to be turning into the type of things they claimed to be against. With a rise in atheist media such as advertising on buses and just about anything that comes out of Bill Mahers mouth when he gets on tv, i feel like atheists are starting to shove there beliefs down other peoples throats. There is even more proof of that by how up in arms people have gotten on this thread. I dont like in when religious people are pushy with there dogma either. Maybe i dont fully understand it, but isnt this one of the big things that atheists are against?


----------



## enufced904 (Jul 17, 2008)

Rationalist said:


> It might not matter to you, but it has caused a lot of grief and hardship for the gay community.


Certainly, there are groups of Christians that oppress homosexuals. I do not agree with what they are doing by any means and do not know why these individual groups convey homosexuality as being the number one "sin". As a Christian myself, these acts disgust me. I have a gay brother and lesbian cousin and don't treat them any differently than when I thought they were straight. I love them the same and always will.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

joshua7789 said:


> My religious prefrence is indiffernce due to a lack of proof for on either side. My problem with atheists lately (just to warn you, this is a huge generalization) is that they seem to be turning into the type of things they claimed to be against. With a rise in atheist media such as advertising on buses and just about anything that comes out of Bill Mahers mouth when he gets on tv, i feel like atheists are starting to shove there beliefs down other peoples throats. There is even more proof of that by how up in arms people have gotten on this thread. I dont like in when religious people are pushy with there dogma either. Maybe i dont fully understand it, but isnt this one of the big things that atheists are against?


Atheists are not against dissemination of information. And cmon, religion has entire channels of programming dedicated. They flier and go door to door and have even gotten state sponsorship through programs like Alcoholics Anonymous (which courts even ORDER people to go to, despite the fact that the program requires belief in a god). Although I haven't see any ads for atheism to speak of and don't watch Bill Maher much, even granted that stuff is happening, it is nowhere NEAR the level of even the 700 Club.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Atheists are not against dissemination of information. And cmon, religion has entire channels of programming dedicated. They flier and go door to door and have even gotten state sponsorship through programs like Alcoholics Anonymous (which courts even ORDER people to go to, despite the fact that the program requires belief in a god). Although I haven't see any ads for atheism to speak of and don't watch Bill Maher much, even granted that stuff is happening, it is nowhere NEAR the level of even the 700 Club.


I think you got me wrong man. I dont like it when christian groups do it and i guess i was just under the impression that atheists were against pushing there beliefs on folks (once again, a large generalization).


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

ericr said:


> Wow Osmium. I really like a lot of the posts you make regarding MMA, but I'm pretty shocked to see such ridiculous statements. Have people done horrible things in the name of Religion and Faith. YES. Have religions stood for horrible things and committed atrocities. YES. But so has people coming from ALL walks of life. Scientists created the nuclear bomb that killed hundreds of thousands, and has the potential to kill billions in the future. I think the real difference is you don't believe the way other people do and so you have to bash on them. Kind of funny when you said your views "don't lead to people being assaulted, oppressed, and/or murdered ", yet I name the nuke, and then we have your verbal assault, and in todays world religious people are being oppressed whether you see it or not.


Yeah because world war 2 wasn't started because of religion. Even the use of the bomb comes down to a "moral" justification set by religion that we are good they are evil. List a legitimate threat to start nuclear war that doesn't involve religion. List a scientist who actually gave an order to use nuclear weapons on people. You could smash someones skull with a brick that doesn't mean the person who made that brick was propagating violence. Unlike religion where they mentor you on the metaphorical brick wielding and encourage you to utilize your skills.

Religious people are being oppressed by in large because of other religions and those same people would be doing the exact same thing if they were in power. The only other examples that can be listed are of fascist and communist governments and that is rooted in the fact that those systems don't allow for competing power structures to exist not because you want to search for rabbit eggs. 

I'm not going to debate you within the rules supplied by the people who programmed your gullible mind. Your views are based in illogical arguments centered around preventing questioning of the role of religion within the society. This notion that "well all kinds of people do terrible things." Wrong, crazy people, large groups of power hungry people, and the stupid people they influence do terrible things. Level headed rational people don't kill people just because they read a book of fairy tales or because someone told them to. 

To the person who responded to me that gays and women aren't being oppressed. All I have to say is Roy Nelson can show his fat tits all over tv and in public if he wants and if one person imagines seeing Janet Jackson's nipple the entire country loses its ******* mind. That is a deeply rooted condemnation of women as being evil and less than. Societal reaction to programming of a spectacular nature. The same situation exists for homosexuals. 

Religion permeates all facets of our society it is the poison limb of humanity. Conditioning everyone to tolerate levels of abuse towards whatever their mythology frowns upon. Even within the current healthcare debate this is prevalent as women face heavy discrimination from insurance companies justifying fraudulently stealing their coverage by claiming spousal abuse and pregnancy are pre-existing conditions. That is made tolerable by the rules religion set the debate to.


----------



## 6toes (Sep 9, 2007)

rogi said:


> omg that's the most ignorant thing i've ever read. your science is just as evil as religion. if it wasn't for science we wouldn't have guns to kill people with. without the bible how would you know how to be good? can you prove there is no god? i didn't think so.


I can't tell if you're kidding here or not...I really don't know what to say about this...

Personally, I'm not religious. My mother is religious and was raised catholic. My father is Atheist. When I was young I was taken to Church every Sunday but by the time I was ten years old I was no longer attending Church. Since then I've been able to formulate my OWN beliefs and decide what I choose to believe in for myself. Do I believe in the Christian God or any other religion's deity? No. Far from it. Do I believe there is some sort of being out there that operates on a plane of being that, in my simple human mind, I couldn't possibly begin to understand? It's certainly a possibility.

As some have said already, I feel organized religion in many cases causes more damage than good. Some people need religion in their lives and some people truly believe in what they worship and I'm completely fine with that. I don't look down on the religious community, I just feel that we see things very differently, and while I could argue all day why religion is wrong, I CANNOT disprove any religion nor can I prove that someone's God does not exist. However, it is my personal belief that organized religion, in many of its forms, can oppressive and intolerant. Which is very unfortunate and should be quite the opposite. I understand that organized religion is in many ways intended to instill moral values in its followers but the hypocrisy can be absolutely disgusting at times. 

I won't go as far as to say that organized religion was conceived in an attempt to control the population (though I would have to say I find the idea very plausible and in some instances it is valid without a doubt) but religion is used by many as a tool to achieve their own gains at the expense of others which is mainly what I take issue with.

Overall, I feel that it should be up to an individual what they choose to believe in, and I apologize if anyone has been offended by my post. I know that religion is a very sensitive subject and it certainly was not my intention to single anyone out or attack anyone's belief and if anyone feels that way then I sincerely apologize.

And actually on topic, if a fighter wished to thank God after a victory then I'm totally cool with that. Sometimes I feel like a fighter should move on after that point, though. I think your trainers and yourself deserve a little credit as well right?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

joshua7789 said:


> I think you got me wrong man. I dont like it when christian groups do it and i guess i was just under the impression that atheists were against pushing there beliefs on folks (once again, a large generalization).


Well, that particular topic isn't actually related to atheism. A given atheist may be interested in pushing his beliefs on people, another might not. Atheism is not a religion, we don't have a holy book that tells us to shun the nonbelievers or spread the word of god. So really that would just be up to the indiviual atheist.


----------



## YOURMOMWASHERE (Sep 20, 2009)

This might not make the theists here happy but I do feel sad for the fighters who thank god after how they fought. Dude, thank yourself...you're the one who earned it. YOU won the damn fight. Look how big the universe is, the human mind can't even comprehend it. Do you REALLY think if there is a god hes focusing on your little UFC fight in 1 of trillions of galaxies? Come on......I mean this is 3rd grade logic here.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

YOURMOMWASHERE said:


> This might not make the theists here happy but I do feel sad for the fighters who thank god after how they fought. Dude, thank yourself...you're the one who earned it. YOU won the damn fight. Look how big the universe is, the human mind can't even comprehend it. Do you REALLY think if there is a god hes focusing on your little UFC fight in 1 of trillions of galaxies? Come on......I mean this is 3rd grade logic here.


The funniest part is when you consider the possibility that both fighters are god-fearing men. Does that mean god likes one fighter more, and made him win because of it? Ouch!


----------



## GMK13 (Apr 20, 2009)

> I just want to say, I'm not trying to cause any religious arguements or provoke hatred and I'm fully aware this is a pretty sensitive topic


 It's gonna happen anyway. main thing is religion will not make or break this sport so its a moot point.


----------



## ericr (Sep 13, 2006)

HexRei said:


> The funniest part is when you consider the possibility that both fighters are god-fearing men. Does that mean god likes one fighter more, and made him win because of it? Ouch!


How has that anything to do with it? I've seen this argument so many times its kind of getting on my nerves. Since they believe God does exist for the sake of this argument we will go on that(I believe he does also, but since some don't I wanted to clarify). A Dad may love both his children equally and yet maybe monday night is johnny's night to pick the movie. Or maybe its matts turn because the Dad felt like he behaved just a bit better that day. The point is, God can love people equally and still "bless" one fighter over another in a specific circumstance. I don't think God "Makes" the fighters win personally, but that doesn't mean they can't believe that way, and it doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Also since God is all knowing perhaps he knew it was in the best interest of a fighter to lose a match to humble him. Many fighters claim that losing a specific fight made them a better fighter in the long run. It's not too hard to think of many reasons why God might bless one fighter over another, but since people are so anti-God on here, its obvious their biases cloud their thinking.


----------



## YOURMOMWASHERE (Sep 20, 2009)

ericr said:


> How has that anything to do with it? I've seen this argument so many times its kind of getting on my nerves. Since they believe God does exist for the sake of this argument we will go on that(I believe he does also, but since some don't I wanted to clarify). A Dad may love both his children equally and yet maybe monday night is johnny's night to pick the movie. Or maybe its matts turn because the Dad felt like he behaved just a bit better that day. The point is, God can love people equally and still "bless" one fighter over another in a specific circumstance. I don't think God "Makes" the fighters win personally, but that doesn't mean they can't believe that way, and it doesn't mean it isn't possible.
> 
> Also since God is all knowing perhaps he knew it was in the best interest of a fighter to lose a match to humble him. Many fighters claim that losing a specific fight made them a better fighter in the long run. It's not too hard to think of many reasons why God might bless one fighter over another, but since people are so anti-God on here, its obvious their biases cloud their thinking.


Im not anti god, I even believe in a creator. But what you're saying is boarderline insane. Do you know how big the universe is? I mean nobody knows for sure, but it's so big that the human mind isn't developed enough to comprehend how big it is. Dude, thats f***ing BIG. Do some of you people honestly feel that special that you think this creator is going to make things happen good or bad for YOU based on things you've done or what you need? Come on...


----------



## Light_Speed (Jun 3, 2009)

one thing i can say is this... right now the ESTABLISHMENT..controll the masses with the Media...before television they controlled the masses with RELIGION...period also to the guy talking about Zues... zues was actully the first god of gods... and zues in ancient cyrillic means LIFE and his wife means BELIEF ..dats pretty crazy ..not alot of people know this


----------



## TALENT (May 21, 2008)

xeberus said:


> Yea, I've definitely met my share of D-bag atheists. What annoys me the most about them is how they carry their huge banners and signs outside of bars/clubs/universities/medical clinics to bash others for wasting their lives and when they force their science on us. The only thing worse are the ones that knock on your door at 7am on saturday waking you up to tell you about evolution. Nothing wrong with a persons beliefs as long as they don't infringe on anothers rights.


I see what you did there.

Well played my friend


----------



## Biowza (May 22, 2007)

I have to go to uni at the moment, but just warning you when I get back home I'm going to make a god damn huge post which will kill the thread, overload the verticalscope servers and bring down the internet.


----------



## TERMINATOR (Jul 6, 2008)

Im not for sure what I believe but I dont get the thanking the good thing. You dont hear anyone saying "oh think you sweet lord all mighty for letting me get one hell of an ass whippin. Thank you deeply. All praise the guy who about ripped my f**king arm off" You never hear the loser say that.


----------



## Rationalist (Oct 15, 2006)

rogi said:


> omg that's the most ignorant thing i've ever read. your science is just as evil as religion. if it wasn't for science we wouldn't have guns to kill people with. without the bible how would you know how to be good? can you prove there is no god? i didn't think so.


The bible condones slavery. "Jesus" could have easily abolished slavery, but for some reason he didn't. 

Is that where you get your morals? 

I believe religion will be around for a very long time, but it will surely evolve through time. If it doesn't evolve to fit our moral progression, then it will end like all the others.


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Well i am an "Athiest" however i don't preach evolution or anything like that, i have my beliefs and others have their beliefs.

What does annoy me about religious nuts are when they talk to someone who doesn't believe in God, the church etc.....they think you're possessed by Satan. Good grief.

Iran is the only true Theoretical government in the world and you see how horrible they treat women, how ridiculous their laws are and it does make me wonder what their supposed "God" would feel about all of it. There's nothing in the holy Quran about publicly stoning your wife for showing her ankles in public, yet they use their religion as their reasoning for such acts.

Then you have clowns like Kirk Cameron who compare Charles Darwin to Hitler and i classify that guy as a "religious fanatic" which gives good and decent religious people a bad rep. He's basically saying either you're with Christianity or you're against it.

All in all, i just can't make sense of living your life by a book that's been rewritten over and over and over again. Religion should be about being a good person, being good to your fellow neighbor and living your life honestly and honorably. Not killing people who have different religions, beating their children or wives for the smallest things.

All in all, there's so many religions, Gods, bibles, life structures, and no actual scientific proof to back any of it up so i just can't be bothered by it.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ericr said:


> How has that anything to do with it? I've seen this argument so many times its kind of getting on my nerves. Since they believe God does exist for the sake of this argument we will go on that(I believe he does also, but since some don't I wanted to clarify). A Dad may love both his children equally and yet maybe monday night is johnny's night to pick the movie. Or maybe its matts turn because the Dad felt like he behaved just a bit better that day. The point is, God can love people equally and still "bless" one fighter over another in a specific circumstance. I don't think God "Makes" the fighters win personally, but that doesn't mean they can't believe that way, and it doesn't mean it isn't possible.
> 
> Also since God is all knowing perhaps he knew it was in the best interest of a fighter to lose a match to humble him. Many fighters claim that losing a specific fight made them a better fighter in the long run. It's not too hard to think of many reasons why God might bless one fighter over another, but since people are so anti-God on here, its obvious their biases cloud their thinking.


LOL ya. I'm "anti-god" man I just hate god!


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

Bahahahah, deff TLR.....but.... religion is all bullshit dude. Honestly, how can you argue your beliefs that don't make sense against another?! Faith is a ******* scary thing.....faith basically = accepting without reason. Uh, it's just all bullshit to me, all religion is bullshit to me....why do people thank God? Who knows? I can only say for me that I believe slightly in God because when I die, I'm scared there's going to be some force being like "DUDDDDEEE YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE!" but in reality, there's probably going to be nothing....you are dead. I don't know, I always use this example .... you thank God when he cures you of cancer but you don't damn him when you get cancer. It can't work both ways. Uh, religion is just ******* sily, it's nice for humans, but it's really inconsequential, what happens when you die is what happens.


----------



## YOURMOMWASHERE (Sep 20, 2009)

When you die......it probably feels like sleeping.


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

Dude, I don get the username... my ma was here, commenting on a MMA forum? ******* SICK!


----------



## name goes here (Aug 15, 2007)

YOURMOMWASHERE said:


> LOL, I knew from the 1st post this thread would turn into a religion shitstorm. Well heres my 2 cents.
> 
> First off, im an agnostic. *cough*


Giant Sky Beard Strict Jew Dad God, crushes your god 'AGNOS'!!!! And his Son Emo, Zombie, No Money, Son, spits on your god AGNOS'S grave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

I think you guys are going a little too far say the only reason people believe in God is because they are stupid. I mean heck look a rich he is probably more educated than most people on this forum but he believes in God.

look I believe in God and I have my reasons and experiences that strengthen my faith but I am anything but an idiot.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)




----------



## Lochtsa (Apr 3, 2009)

Interesting Post,

Many good points brought on both sides, lol. Religion is nothing more than a guilt trip, based on nothing scientific. If you do A and not B, you go to this wonderful place for ever and ever. But if you do not follow, you go to this terrible place and burn forever. Oh, and send me your money, I'll make sure you make it to the pearly gates.

I can't believe educated adults actually believe this crap. 

Humans need to realize, we are nothing different than other living, respiring, plants and animals. When we die, we rot in the ground like everything else that dies.

When I see Belfort say " thank you jesus , thank you jesus ", I want to vomit.

To answer your post, I believe lack of education, family, environment, and fear of dying are the main reasons fighters and the alike cling to faith and religion.

If you read some of the ridiculous stories in the bible and read Jack and the Beanstalk, and ask a child which is made up, they would have a hard time believing either..........


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

Lochtsa said:


> Many good points brought on both sides


Anyway I could get you to quote all the religious side quotes that had good points? I can't find any that aren't ignorant, unfounded and general statements. I've been waiting for some intelligent religious poster to jump in for me to talk to. If only biowza were religious :dunno:


----------



## daitrong (May 27, 2007)

Deftsound said:


> Really? I seem to remember from my history class that the pilgrims coming from England to America on the Mayflower were escaping Catholic rule to form their own sect of christianity also known as Lutherans, based on Martin Luther's theory, "Luther taught that salvation is not from good works, but a free gift of God, received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority of the pope of the Roman Catholic Church."
> 
> America was formed upon pilgrim seperatists wanting to escape the wrath of the catholic church to practice their own form of christianity, "With their religion oppressed by the English Church and government,[5] the small party of religious Puritan separatists who comprised about half of the passengers on the ship desired a life where they could practice their religion freely. This symbol of religious freedom resonates in US society"
> 
> Many of the founders may have been deist, but fundamentally, America was founded on religious principles....


Please explain to me why we should hold onto an outdated superstitious belief that's hundreds of years old? 

Also, Einstein did not believe in god--at least not the christian god you know. He saw got metaphorically as something that governs the laws of nature, and not as an imaginary person in the sky that governs the world like strings on a puppet. 

As a side note, using a prestigious person of academic merit in order to back up your opinion is pretty absurd. That's like saying Bil Gates doesn't believe in god (he doesn't) ,therefore, i shouldn't believe in god. If you want to debate why people in general should believe in god, all you have to do it provide evidence of his existence, or verify that he did indeed do all that his followers said he did in the bible. That is all, if you can do that than you will practically convert every human being on the planet.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

It's not all fighters, only the TOP fighters like Anderson, GSP, Randy, Fedor, Franklin, Machida, Rampage, Carwin, Jon Jones, Belfort, Couture, Lesnar, Hughes etc. (though admittedly, the last 3 are bad examples of their faith). Also, let's skip the "religious" stuff and just say Christianity, as we all know that's the religion condescending atheists really have a problem with, and that's the only one I've ever seen an MMA fighter practice (at least in the UFC and big orgs). 

While the atheists will laugh titteringly at their own intellectual superiority and the "uneducated stupidity" of Christians (never mind that guys like Carwin and Franklin are twice as educated as most ppl on this board), they will never even consider the possibility that Christianity can be positive. In spite of the proof being in front of their very eyes, that faith can make a person mentally stronger and more fearless and yield results, how EVERY top fighter in this warrior sport relies on his faith to get him there and passes credit straight to God. But no, humble guys like Fedor who've conquered the most extreme of sports must be retards. The people sitting on their computer all day downloading porn and laughing at their own superiority must be right.

There's plenty of atheist fighters like Tito Ortiz, Ken Shamrock etc. As a "biased" Christian, I could tell you that's where faith makes a difference. Faith will make you try to look at your own flaws in humility and submit to a higher being, trying to better yourself. But Athests answer only to themselves, so how can they be wrong about anything? After all "right and wrong are completely relative". And while people are very eager to use "work in progress" Christians like Hughes and Lesnar who are still struggling with humility as examples of pompous Christians, they'll never attribute the success of guys like Fedor to what they openly state is the key to their success. That their faith gave them the strength and determination to make it through the tough tests to where they are.

Hypothetically, even if say there is no God (though I could tell you my whole life story and it's turnaround as a justification of why there is), why is Christianity so bad? Get your head out of your asses about the usual brainwashed response "waaah the crusades, the inquisition waah" and look at the people around you and the heroes in the sport you admire. Are they good examples to follow? Is it so bad to have something that keeps you going through the hard times? A conviction and comfort that one is not alone in his struggles? To live a good life of charity, self-improvement and humility? Yes there are hypocritical self-righteous Christians, some corrupt lying priests, and hateful Christians. But for every one of those, there's ten that spend their nights at a homeless shelter serving soup, feed the hungry in Africa, treat the lepers in India and go through life with humility and love. Get over your bias and respect people's beliefs.

As far as religion being "irrational", I can't imagine a more irrational belief than thinking that this immensely detailed universe with such intricately linked systems that function like clockwork, right from to our individual cells up to the galaxies, just happened to work that way randomly. To think that the 1 in a gazillion chance that all these conditions got created on their own is actually the likely and rational outcome is silly IMO. More likely if their wasn's some guiding force, shit would be flying around in utter chaos and there'd be no universe let alone life. Yes literalist Bible beliefs can be irrational too, but nothing tops this.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

It occurred to me that the word god is so widespread, that debating why any person would say "thank god" is like debating somebodies favourite food.

I dislike all organized religions but believe in something else. I call that something else god sometimes. I've heard pagans use the word god when talking about trees. I've also had experiences with fascists who use the term god. Some anarchists have their god too. Both Christians and Muslims say "god" ... I could go on all day.

My point is, are you seriously trying to debate this? Over the internet? All I can say is... God help us.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

Probably when they thank god after a fight, they're thanking god not for giving them the win, but for giving them the dedication and drive to become a world class athlete.

It never bugs me (except Diego Sanchez - most ostentatious born again ever)when fighters are religious, and I'm agnostic.


----------



## daitrong (May 27, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> As far as religion being "irrational", I can't imagine a more irrational belief than thinking that this immensely detailed universe with such intricately linked systems that function like clockwork, right from to our individual cells up to the galaxies, JUST HAPPENED TO WORK THAT WAY RANDOMLY. To think that the 1 in a 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance that all these conditions got created on their own is actually the likely and rational outcome is silly IMO. More likely if their wasn's some guiding force, shit would be flying around in utter chaos and there'd be no universe let alone life. Yes literalist Bible beliefs can be irrational too, but nothing tops this.


Go take a few classes in physics. (I assumed you have not from the lack of knowledge you display on what guides the universe) Maybe you'll understand why the world is not as random as you say it is. By-the-way, the universe *is* guided by something. It's guided by the same laws guiding everything in the universe. You wonder why "shit" doesn't fly everywhere? That's because everything on this universe is attracted to each other. As a matter of fact, "shit" does fly everywhere, but it is being held back by the attractive forces from other bigger "shit" that is flying towards, yet, another big "shit". If you take an introductory course in physics, you would have known that. 

It is all irrational to you because you simply fail to research the topic. Like most Christians I'm met, they have never read the bible, or even have a clue regarding the history of the bible. And, yet, they call themselves Christians. Maybe being a Christian is about having only faith? Are you aware that the accounts of Jesus in the Bible are written from people living generations after Jesus' death? Were you aware that these people wrote stories about Jesus that they heard from other people? Did you know the bible as we have it today has been changed significantly from the original bible of the past? Did you know that the original bible *does not exist?* You would think that if god wanted his words to be known throughout the generations, he would have preserved it for everyone. I can go on and on about people changing the bible (adding stories, omitting stories). I know more about the bible than most Christians do, and I don't even believe in it. Why is that? Why do so many people hold such strong beliefs about a topic that they know little about? It's because people believe in god because it's reassuring--comforting. This does have some benefits as you have mentioned, but isn't finding comfort in an delusion, well, odd? Wouldn't you want to live life and see it as it really is? Reality does not change from one person to the next, the perception of reality might change, but reality or truth is constant--whether you want to believe in it or not. 


You mention that the bible does hold some irrational claims. Let's explore those irrational claims more in detail. According to the bible’s account of earth’s creation in the book of Genesis, God created the earth from nothing in 6 days, but according to many physicists, the origin of the earth is due to the gravitational attraction of various particles in space some 4.6 billion years ago. Everything, no matter how small has an affinity or attraction towards everything else around. According to Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, “Every body in the universe attracts every other body with a force that, for two bodies, is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them” How this law relates to the origin of the earth is that billions of years ago small particles in our solar system were mutually attracted each other, causing them to clump together to form larger bodies of mass. This process occurs continuously, (even today) which eventually gave way to the spherical earth we know today. Many Christians,(like you?) however, don’t buy into this theory and choose to believe that god with his divine power created the universe from nothing. Scientists, on the other hand, are skeptical because this ideology opposes the natural laws of nature, specifically the Law of Conservation Energy, which “refers to the amount of energy and matter in the universe; neither is created nor destroyed but is constant, even if it changes forms. It is impossible to create matter or energy from nothing as God has seemed to have done. 

Another favorite irrational story I like to talk about is Noah's Flood. In order for the entire earth to be submerged beneath water in forty days as is stated in the book of Genesis, there would need to be a massive world-wide storm generating six inches of rain every minute. SIX inches of rain every minutes! This is astronomical! Let's put into perspective. Hurricane Katrina, the one that devastated Louisiana a few years back, was around a category 5. This category 5 hurricane generates six inch of rain every hour! One may imagine the every inch of the glove covered by category 5 hurricanes. Now one imagines each one of these hurricanes being joined by 59 other identical storms (they may be thought of as being stacked 60 deep). Each of these storms would have to last 40 days. If Noah’s Flood did indeed occur, then it would be logical to assume that there would be evidence left behind, such evidence, as a uniform layer of sediments worldwide. Consequently there has been no such world-wide uniform layer ever found. Furthermore, it would also be logical to presume that there would be fossils of various ocean-dwelling animals found within earth’s sedimentary layers throughout the globe, but once again evidence of this has yet to be found. 

Now, do you think that a worldwide flood like this is a plausible scenario? There are many other obscure claims in the bible that are just plain wrong and irrational, such as saying that the earth is flat or that it is only several thousand years old. You'll figure that the bible would mention something actually important. Why not mention germ theory of disease? That alone could have over a billion people.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

daitrong said:


> Go take a few classes in physics. (I assumed you have not from the lack of knowledge you display on what guides the universe) Maybe you'll understand why the world is not as random as you say it is. By-the-way, the universe *is* guided by something. It's guided by the same laws guiding everything in the universe. You wonder why "shit" doesn't fly everywhere? That's because everything on this universe is attracted to each other. As a matter of fact, "shit" does fly everywhere, but it is being held back by the attractive forces from other bigger "shit" that is flying towards, yet, another big "shit". If you take an introductory course in physics, you would have known that.
> 
> It is all irrational to you because you simply fail to research the topic. Like most Christians I'm met, they have never read the bible, or even have a clue regarding the history of the bible. And, yet, they call themselves Christians. Maybe being a Christian is about having only faith? Are you aware that the accounts of Jesus in the Bible are written from people living generations after Jesus' death? Were you aware that these people wrote stories about Jesus that they heard from other people? Did you know the bible as we have it today has been changed significantly from the original bible of the past? Did you know that the original bible *does not exist?* You would think that if god wanted his words to be known throughout the generations, he would have preserved it for everyone. I can go on and on about people changing the bible (adding stories, omitting stories). I know more about the bible than most Christians do, and I don't even believe in it. Why is that? Why do so many people hold such strong beliefs about a topic that they know little about? It's because people believe in god because it's reassuring--comforting. This does have some benefits as you have mentioned, but isn't finding comfort in an delusion, well, odd? Wouldn't you want to live life and see it as it really is? Reality does not change from one person to the next, the perception of reality might change, but reality or truth is constant--whether you want to believe in it or not.
> 
> ...


lol, I didn't even bother reading your whole thesis, because your whole argument proves it's naivete in the first line. No shit, things in space work the way they do because of gravity and physics. BUT WHY DO PHYSICS AND GRAVITY WORK THE WAY THEY DO? Why do scientific laws work together so beautifully to create planets, with water, that can sustain life, that balance each other PERFECTLY in ecosystems and so on? You look at physics and say "SEE!! Physics explains why Physics works this way!!"? It's childish, I'm not arguing science I'm arguing that science and the laws of reality could've worked ANY random way except the way they do and shit as delicate as life would never exist. You just state the facts and then congratulate yourself with the unfounded assumption that they created themselves. Perhaps you should tell that to Einstein, the greatest scientist that ever lived ... he didn't believe in Christianity, but he DID believe in a higher intelligence that put it all together.

As far as Noah's flood or Genesis and that kind of thing, read my line that some "Bible literalism" may be irrational. That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. And Genesis is metaphorical way of explaining creation, not literal ... but if you look at the sequence of events, that is exactly how they occured. First there was light (Big Bang), then stars, then a planet with water (Earth was first covered with water), then land rose, then marine life, then animals and finally man. Yes, a 2000 year old book explains the exact order of how events happened since the big bang. Also, "6 days" is obviously a metaphorical time frame, since our "days" are measured by the very earth and sun that didn't even exist at the time Genesis refers.

The original bible does not exist? Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you know they've been carbon dated for authenticity back to the exact time periods they refer? Do you realize they are almost exactly identical to the KJV Bible in use todayl


----------



## _redruM_ (Dec 30, 2007)

rogi said:


> omg that's the most ignorant thing i've ever read. your science is just as evil as religion. if it wasn't for science we wouldn't have guns to kill people with. without the bible how would you know how to be good? can you prove there is no god? i didn't think so.


...Seriously? I can't tell if you are serious or not. I'm going to reply assuming you are.

That's dumb. Like, really dumb. I'm not particularly religious, but I'm also not the type to ridicule or judge people who are (unless those beliefs are harmful to others). However, this is the type of radical, *blind* faith that completely forgoes all manner of reason or logic which causes most religions and their followers to be ridiculed.

First of all, why do you talk about science as though its a person? Science is a tool. When someone stabs another person with a screwdriver you don't blame the screwdriver, you blame the *person*. Science is not to blame for the way people choose to use it. Again, its that attitude of following a book without thinking for yourself and taking responsibility for your actions as human beings that causes a lot of the ridicule you get.

Secondly, even guns are not evil. Again, a gun is a tool. People are hit by cars, but does that make cars evil? Take some responsibility, seriously. That's the most idiotic logic I can imagine. Would you rather we never invented cars? Or any other tools that make our lives easier? Hell, someone can die from overdosing on medicine, I guess medicine is evil.

Thirdly, your second last question is idiotic, also. I've never read the bible. I've also never been charged with a crime, nor commited any _serious_ ones. Again, its about taking responsibility instead of just doing what a book says. We have laws, education, parenting, and a moral fabric of society to tell us what we should or shouldn't do. If you follow the bible and nothing else you would be stoning gay people and wondering why you got thrown in jail for it.

Finally, your last comment is also void of any proper logic. When you make a claim the burden of proof is on *you*. Picture this scenario:

Person A: The sky is going to collapse on the Earth in two weeks.
Person B: I don't think so.
Person A: Can you prove it isn't?

The burden of proof is on person A. The above example is painfully ridiculous, and its truly sad that I actually think its necessary to have any hope of the message reaching you. One of the wonderful things about science is that it proves itself. No one who truly understands science will say there is no god, they will simply say there is no *proof* of god. Science can't truly disprove the existence of god, _yet_, but considering how many things its already proven, one would expect the trend to continue.


Again, I don't judge or ridicule those who feel their life truly benefits from whatever belief. I live by the philosophy that you should do what you please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. However, the statements I quoted above are incredibly harmful for a variety of reasons, and I don't feel too much regret if I've offended the poster.


----------



## Mjr (Apr 22, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> . That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. l


You are right it doesn't. But there are a number of scientific facts as mentioned above that cast doubt on his existence. 

Where is the proof that he does?


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Wow this thread picked up,
I was just thinking yesterday, that I have to say I think it's more likely that less economically developed countries have a poorer education system, less entertainment available etc.

To me a poorer education, leads to less people willing or able to question a concept and take the teaching as an absolute. Of course there are thousands of other variables that have an impending affect upon each person, differently. 

What I am not saying is there is a rule between less intelligence and more religious values. There ISN'T. I know plenty of religious people who are very intelligent. But there is direct correlation. I think anything that helps, brings hope or teaches value to a person and makes them happy, can NEVER be a bad thing.

Mr.J there is more proof to suggest Jesus and God exist than Julius Cesar. It's not the notion of evidence proving he doesn't exist. But the lack proving he does.


----------



## Couchwarrior (Jul 13, 2007)

daitrong said:


> It is all irrational to you because you simply fail to research the topic.[...]





Liddellianenko said:


> lol, I didn't even bother reading your whole thesis, because your whole argument proves it's naivete in the first line. [...]


:laugh:


----------



## out 4 the count (Oct 13, 2008)

> As far as religion being "irrational", I can't imagine a more irrational belief than thinking that this immensely detailed universe with such intricately linked systems that function like clockwork, right from to our individual cells up to the galaxies, just happened to work that way randomly. To think that the 1 in a gazillion chance that all these conditions got created on their own is actually the likely and rational outcome is silly IMO.


Your logic is painful.

Who created God? Or does he exist in a completely different physical plain where our rules of the universe don't apply?

As I mentioned somewhere previously in this post, you have to accept somewhere along the line something came from nothing. There is absolutely zero evidence to support any kind of creator other than the complexity of the universe, which would require an infinitely more complex creator.

I know it's an old Dawkins cliche that gets trotted out on these threads all the time, but there is as much evidence for a flying spaghetti monster as there is God in the biblical sense.

We could sit here arguing the toss all day about how I believe in a flying spaghetti monster using all the reasons people here have provided for their belief in God and it wouldn't be any less valid. You'd think I'm wrong and an idiot, but you guys can't prove me wrong either way. Faith in the flying spaghetti monster is all I need.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Couchwarrior said:


> :laugh:


Ok, I actually did go back and read the whole thing when I had time, just didn't have the patience to do it right away. But the point is the same, he is arguing on the basis of physical principles causing things to work the way they do, I'm saying that's trivial.... the whole argument is why physical/biological principles etc. work the way they do?

Take gravity for example.. he said it's an attractive force and that's why we have planets, life and so on. What if it wasn't? What if it was a repelling force? Then we'd have a bunch of electrons and protons doing their best to push each other farther and farther away, instead of combining to make atoms, which combine to make molecules, which combine to make cells etc. PHILOSOPHICALLY, if we cast aside our preconcieved notions of the laws of reality, there is no reason gravity had to be an attractive force or even exist, or be strong enough to counter electomagnetic forces...why does this attractive force exist in the first place? This is just one small example, for one small principle of physics... the same argument can be made for so many coincidences in creation, it's mindboggling.



Mjr180 said:


> You are right it doesn't. But there are a number of scientific facts as mentioned above that cast doubt on his existence.
> 
> Where is the proof that he does?


What about what I just said? What about the fact that it's philosophically impossible for something to come out of nothing... there has to be something that has always been. Since we're on an MMA forum, what about the very fact we were discussing, why so many guys with faith make it to the top in mma? 

What scientific facts cast doubt? None, you just look at the laws and the fact that they exist doesn't mean noone created them. The fact that the Bible talks about them allegorically, or simple minded but well meaning people take it literally, doesn't cast any doubt either. That's just people, it doesn't prove anything about god one way or another.

None of these will be ever be full proof.. IMHO the fact is that the fundamental nature of God's existence is that it is not MEANT to be proven 100% but has to be taken on faith, at least for now. Because to have no doubt would mean no freedom of choice. If there was an omnipotent being sitting right there in front of us that we knew we couldn't defy, there'd be no choice. No choice would mean no mystery of life, we'd just be puppets. So basically, we can argue all day, but my take on it is nothing will convince you except for personal experiences in your life journey, like they did in mine. In the meantime, lets try to respect each other's beliefs.



out 4 the count said:


> We could sit here arguing the toss all day about how I believe in a flying spaghetti monster using all the reasons people here have provided for their belief in God and it wouldn't be any less valid. You'd think I'm wrong and an idiot, but you guys can't prove me wrong either way. Faith in the flying spaghetti monster is all I need.


Except Flying Spaghetti Monster followers aren't exactly sitting at the top of the MMA heap are they, or we wouldn't be having this discussion? Or life? You can believe in whatever garbage you want, in the end it's how positively it impacts your life... I prefer to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Fedor, GSP, Mother Teresa etc. you can name all your Spaghetti monster idols you want.

Can atheists even have a discussion about religion without resorting to childish jokes and stupid overused "wit" like ooh Spaghetti monster, Big old man in the sky, ooh Jebus? Why so angsty?


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

There might be a supreme being out there......but i doubt he gives a shit about this tiny little planet.

Earth is to the Universe what a grain of sand is to the milky way. Compared to the rest of the Universe this planet and it's species are nothing. There is many, many other lifeforms out there, one would have to be naive with the size of the Universe to believe that we are the only forms of life in space which spans billions and billions of light-years across.

Why any supreme being would create some forms of life and dictate how to live, and decide their fate when they die is beyond me. 

I think people just want to believe in something. Something that will ease bad times and give them hope for an afterlife. Religion has been around well before this Jesus character existed, the Egyptians worshiped their Sun god and had their own religions as well.

Religion was probably just created to control and scare the masses. It sure does one hell of a job.


----------



## T.Bone (Oct 15, 2008)

One word: Evolution. 

Let's look at the possible scenarios.

1: Some dude named "God" created life and everything that comes with it in matter of days.

2: The world has been slowly evolving for millions of years which led to the creation of you, me and everything. 

I'd rather take belief in science personally.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

rygu said:


> There might be a supreme being out there......but i doubt he gives a shit about this tiny little planet.
> 
> Earth is to the Universe what a grain of sand is to the milky way. Compared to the rest of the Universe this planet and it's species are nothing. There is many, many other lifeforms out there, one would have to be naive with the size of the Universe to believe that we are the only forms of life in space which spans billions and billions of light-years across.
> 
> ...


Maybe.. at least you have the agnostic viewpoint of "might". I've always found that a fairly rational position.

But as far as why a supreme being would care about this tiny ass planet and it's inhabitants; for one, any being powerful enough to create THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE (or universes) down to the minutest detail would have to be omniscient. Is it that hard to imagine an omniscient being that cares about everything he sees? 

The second part of that is a personal question. There is no 100 reason that if a God existed, he would have to care. It somehow makes sense that an Omniscient, Omnipotent being that went to all this trouble would also be benevolent, otherwise how could he create something so beautiful and why go to all that trouble? But I'll give you, it is hypothetically possible to have a god that doesn't care.

The proof to the contrary is IMHO a personal journey, and following the principles of faith. Ask it to the people whose have wonderfully happy and fulfilling marriages by choosing love over lust. Or guys who quit incredibly addictive drugs with their faith. Or guys who made it to the top in a sport where they could literally die, but their strength brings them through over and over. Dunno, it's not something I can describe, it just seems like foolish superstition until you feel it work in your life.




T.Bone said:


> One word: Evolution.
> 
> Let's look at the possible scenarios.
> 
> ...


Or God created life through the very scientific processes he created everything else. In fact, maybe he created the scientific laws themselves. Ever heard of Theistic evolution? The theory that evolution would be a Supreme Being's way of creating life? Again, Genesis literalism doesn't invalidate the Bible. And just because you add "some dude named" before God, it doesn't make the philosophy of theism intellectually invalid, it just makes you childish.

At the same time, Macroevolution is not fully proven either. An entire theory pulled out of a hat based on similarities between species. Stars are very similar too... did they all evolve from each other? Or maybe there are inherent physical laws that dictated how they would form and attract etc? Mind you at present I'm partial to thinking evolution is a valid explanation for how life became the way it did, but it's not 100% proven the same way most scientific laws are, and can't be verified through direct experimentation.


----------



## name goes here (Aug 15, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Except Flying Spaghetti Monster followers aren't exactly sitting at the top of the MMA heap are they, or we wouldn't be having this discussion? Or life? You can believe in whatever garbage you want, in the end it's how positively it impacts your life... I prefer to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Fedor, GSP, Mother Teresa etc. you can name all your Spaghetti monster idols you want.


Only because 'God' God got there before FlyingSM God - essentially you are arguing God exists because people think so - but that just proves God as a function of human thought patterns. Which isn't an invaluable position - but it's not a value to relied upon in any other way.


----------



## name goes here (Aug 15, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> The proof to the contrary is IMHO a personal journey, and following the principles of faith. Ask it to the people whose have wonderfully happy and fulfilling marriages by choosing love over lust. Or guys who quit incredibly addictive drugs with their faith. Or guys who made it to the top in a sport where they could literally die, but their strength brings them through over and over. Dunno, it's not something I can describe, it just seems like foolish superstition until you feel it work in your life.


More people believe in God than find measurable success through him though. As such we can say sometimes a bluff in poker works, sometimes you think two 7's is good enough - but most the time belief in God does not actually lead to measurable success in life - and as for the afterlife, we don't know.


----------



## Rationalist (Oct 15, 2006)

Liddellianenko said:


> None of these will be ever be full proof.. IMHO the fact is that the fundamental nature of God's existence is that it is not MEANT to be proven 100% but has to be taken on faith, at least for now. Because to have no doubt would mean no freedom of choice. If there was an omnipotent being sitting right there in front of us that we knew we couldn't defy, there'd be no choice. No choice would mean no mystery of life, we'd just be puppets. So basically, we can argue all day, but my take on it is nothing will convince you except for personal experiences in your life journey, like they did in mine. In the meantime, lets try to respect each other's beliefs.



If god exist then free will is an illusion. An omniscience god knows your exact thoughts and choices before it creates you. If he knows this and still creates you then is it still free will? You are then just a *puppet*.

If god is omniscience and creates the universe knowing that even one baby is raped and murdered, then is god still benevolent?

I believe that your god is either evil or incompetent.


----------



## T.Bone (Oct 15, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> Or God created life through the very scientific processes he created everything else. In fact, maybe he created the scientific laws themselves. Ever heard of Theistic evolution? The theory that evolution would be a Supreme Being's way of creating life? Again, Genesis literalism doesn't invalidate the Bible. And just because you add "some dude named" before God, it doesn't make the philosophy of theism intellectually invalid, it just makes you childish.
> 
> At the same time, Macroevolution is not fully proven either. An entire theory pulled out of a hat based on similarities between species. Stars are very similar too... did they all evolve from each other? Or maybe there are inherent physical laws that dictated how they would form and attract etc? Mind you at present I'm partial to thinking evolution is a valid explanation for how life became the way it did, but it's not 100% proven the same way most scientific laws are, and can't be verified through direct experimentation.


Would you agree that evolution is a more plausible explenation of how life came to be? 

I would say it's far more plausible than beleiving an all powerful being created life and science as we know it.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

EVen if evolution is more plausible, how do you explain whatever there was that made life come to being being made? Nothing can make something out of nothing that we know of..


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

> omg that's the most ignorant thing i've ever read. your science is just as evil as religion. if it wasn't for science we wouldn't have guns to kill people with. without the bible how would you know how to be good? can you prove there is no god? i didn't think so.


How in the world can you say that my post was ignorant when you display complete ignorance of science and logic? As stated in my post:



> I can’t prove that a god does not exist!
> 
> There is a reason in the English language that you are not grammatically allowed the sentence above (double negative). It is scientifically impossible to prove that something does not exist. The inability to prove something does not exist is not evidence of existence!


The gun argument is the same ridiculous argument as the nuke argument



> The nuclear bomb argument is just insane. The bomb was not built because of a lack of belief in a god. And because one does not believe in a god that does not mean they do not value life.


So if you argue that it is sciences fault that we kill people, than why has the life expectancy of humans increased by 45 years since the start of the Bronze Age? Science has never killed a person, nor will it ever! People kill people!


----------



## Rationalist (Oct 15, 2006)

TraMaI said:


> EVen if evolution is more plausible, how do you explain whatever there was that made life come to being being made? Nothing can make something out of nothing that we know of..


Evolution by natural selection explains how the first cell evolved to where we are now. It doesn't explain the "creation" of life.

I don't think anyone can coherently talk about the beginning of the universe or if something was made out of nothing. We just don't know right now. Also note that not too long ago people believed that the earth was flat and the sun rotated around the earth.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

TraMaI said:


> EVen if evolution is more plausible, how do you explain whatever there was that made life come to being being made?


I do not try to explain it. I just accept that nobody knows that answer, and the odds are that we never will. Science gives us clues to how the world may have been formed, but because we are limited to research based on what we find on earth and VERY little research of what we find on near earth planets/moons it would be impossible to come up with an true answer.

I, personally, refuse to accept the "because you cant explain something it must be the actions of a being in control of everything". There is nothing in the world that has ever given me a clue as to that even being plausible while evolution and geology has given us clues to a plausible beginning!


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Rationalist said:


> If god exist then free will is an illusion. An omniscience god knows your exact thoughts and choices before it creates you. If he knows this and still creates you then is it still free will? You are then just a *puppet*.
> 
> If god is omniscience and creates the universe knowing that even one baby is raped and murdered, then is god still benevolent?
> 
> I believe that your god is either evil or incompetent.


As far as free will goes, yes he knows your thoughts but he didn't put them there. At least as far as our bad choices go, they're explained away by being a remnant of ancestors mistakes and so on ... original sin and all that. You are not a puppet... he will allow you to make your mistakes even though he knows what's best, because that's the gift of choice. 

Innocents experiencing evil is part of that free will unfortunately, that doesn't mean that he never intervenes. I've seen tons of miraculous events in peoples lives, but I'll leave those out because I doubt they'd convince anyone here. And the current state of affairs is the result of man making worse and worse choices over generations arguably. 

Of course there's always the afterlife or reincarnation arguments, that explain how all things even out in the end even if you experience injustice here, but I can see how it would seem unfair if you don't believe any of that. Even apart from the afterlife, I can argue that good choices (from a Christian perspective) affect your life positively in the here and now.. it's not a guarantee to that life will be perfect, but it helps. This is exactly why guys like Fedor etc. always thank God for their success because they feel how it's lent them strength... it comes back our original topic.



T.Bone said:


> Would you agree that evolution is a more plausible explenation of how life came to be?
> 
> I would say it's far more plausible than beleiving an all powerful being created life and science as we know it.


So you're saying *Science creating itself* is more plausible than something creating it. No you're right that makes complete sense. Or maybe it just sort of "came to be" on it's own(even though I've already argued that something can't come from nothing, and that includes the very laws of reality itself), but then it comes back to how things fit together so perfectly and systematically, like clockwork. It's easy to take 1 year of high school physics and start shouting how you're smarter than the uneducated theist retards who believe in this God BS. Maybe if you study science to the degree that Einstein did, you'll start seeing the uncanny and systematic way it all supplements each other so perfectly.

Take an ecosystem for instance. You wipe out ONE insignificant species out of an ecosystem, and the whole thing falls apart... like killing the lions and tigers in northern Africa made the Sahara desert today. You're telling me something that balances itself so perfectly just came to be on it's own, sheer coincidence. 

I think Evolution can be a plausible explanation for the origin of life, but religion or not the evidence is still not concrete. At least not as concrete as scientific laws, in effect it is still a theory at best. Either way, how does the fact that scientific processes exist disprove God? This is such a trivial argument.. either you believe in Science or God.. why not both? God, if one exists, would've created the laws of science and reality as much as anything else, I don't see where the contradiction lies unless you insist on literally interpreting the Bible.



TraMaI said:


> EVen if evolution is more plausible, how do you explain whatever there was that made life come to being being made? *Nothing can make something out of nothing that we know of*..


Exactly, that contradicts with Atheism right there, by your own argument. There is no way something can be created out nothing. Even energy can only come from matter and matter from energy, something can never come from NOTHING. So where did all this energy and matter stuff come from? The only explanation is SOMETHING, and I call that something God. Well then who created God? That's just it, he's (the "he" is just a way of saying it, it's quite incomprehensible to put such an entity in normal terms) ALWAYS existed. That's the something that's always been there, always. I know it's hard to thing of something just being, not being created, not starting or ending somewhere, it's almost incomprehensible to our minds. Almost incomprehensible, but not a contradiction, unlike something coming from nothing which is the Atheist argument. And those are the only two options. Sorry if the logic is confusing, but it's based on on proven _scientific _philosophical argument principles.


----------



## rogi (Aug 26, 2007)

lol awesome logic.

Nothing can come from nothing, so god must've created everything. Where did god come from? Oh he was always there. :confused02:

Second of all don't be an idiot. Atheism doesn't claim life came from nothing. Everything comes from somewhere, different chemicals mix to create various other chemicals that create certain proteins and simple life forms like bacteria are created first. They evolve and over millions of life more complex life forms.

That's a lot more believable then everything is created by a powerful being.


----------



## evzbc (Oct 11, 2006)

Ok, I came in on this conversation a little late, and it's starting to get weird and nit picky.

Religion makes people feel better about themselves because they don't know what's going to happen when they die. 

I've been on both sides of the fence, and can't even begin to imagine how this universe was created. Nobody knows until we die. We're a part of it, let's just enjoy it.

Now, the weird part for me about these fighters, is not how they just say "I want to thank God" (because in a way, like that original Einstein quote God can be 'consciousness' to atheistish people)......it's when they say "I Love you JESUS" "Thank you Jesus" that gets a little creepy to me.

They think that Jesus likes to watch fights and see people break each others noses? Sigh.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

liddellianenko said:


> So you're saying *Science creating itself* is more plausible that something creating it. No you're right that makes complete sense.


Science does not create ANYTHING. Science just shows how to create or how something has been created. Currently science can not prove how life began yet, but it certainly gives us clues. 

Evolution is a 100% provable FACT. It proves that living beings evolve over time threw natural selection. This is enough proof for me to believe that all life has evolved from a single cell.

The real question is where that single cell came from. There are ideas, none of which can be proven, so I just don’t know. 




liddellianenko said:


> Exactly, there goes Atheism then by your own argument. There is no way something can be created out nothing.


That in no way threatens my beliefs. Just because we don’t know how something came to be does not mean there was a god that made it. It just means we don’t know where it came from, and not knowing is okay with me. I don’t need an explanation; I don’t need an obvious lie to replace a lack of knowledge.

The statement “god is the answer to all questions” is just blind ignorance. Some questions just cant be answered.


----------



## Rationalist (Oct 15, 2006)

I'm done with this thread. Some people are just going to believe no matter what evidence is presented to them. The "power" of god is enough to trump all logic.


----------



## Mjr (Apr 22, 2007)

Rationalist said:


> I'm done with this thread. Some people are just going to believe no matter what evidence is presented to them. The "power" of god is enough to trump all logic.


Yep, But everyone makes a choice and if people are willing to stick with something they believe in whilst overlooking evidence against it, then full power to them for being loyal and sticking with beliefs.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Rationalist said:


> I'm done with this thread. Some people are just going to believe no matter what evidence is presented to them. The "power" of god is enough to trump all logic.


Yes obviously, because I've spent the last two pages ranting about the power of God without providing any supporting logic. Your almighty reasoning has won again, how smart you are, what a babbling bible thumper I am. How could I hope to argue with a superior mind, with a name like "Rationalist".. so enlightened yet so humble.



Mjr180 said:


> Yep, But everyone makes a choice and if people are willing to stick with something they believe in whilst overlooking evidence against it, then full power to them for being loyal and sticking with beliefs.


Exactly.. thank you. And I respect your choices too. I just wanted to explain mine as logically as I could, and those of them pitiful "poor, uneducated" religious fighters. I'm not "overlooking" the evidence against it, I just find it extremely trivial, unconvincing and easy to disprove.



rogi said:


> lol awesome logic.
> 
> Nothing can come from nothing, so god must've created everything. Where did god come from? Oh he was always there. :confused02:
> 
> ...


You're the one being stupid. I'm arguing the grand scheme of things philosophically, and you keep throwing trivial shit as explanation. Oh really chemicals mix to create chemicals to create bacteria that evolved into life? So that's an example of something coming from nothing then? Wrong. Chemicals are SOMETHING, not NOTHING. They exist. This is still an example of SOMETHING changing into SOMETHING, not something coming from nothing. What about where chemicals came from? From atoms and molecules i.e. SOMETHING. Go all the way back .. where did atoms and molecules (matter) come from? The Big Bang. Well where'd that come from. My answer is a supreme being that has always existed. Yours is ..... uh.... bacteria ... came... uh.. ok. Or nothing? Also, we know for a fact that this universe has not always existed... it came with the big bang, so we can't argue that it has been eternal either.



DanTheJu said:


> I do not try to explain it. I just accept that nobody knows that answer, and the odds are that we never will. Science gives us clues to how the world may have been formed, but because we are limited to research based on what we find on earth and VERY little research of what we find on near earth planets/moons it would be impossible to come up with an true answer.
> 
> I, personally, refuse to accept the "because you cant explain something it must be the actions of a being in control of everything". There is nothing in the world that has ever given me a clue as to that even being plausible while evolution and geology has given us clues to a plausible beginning!


Except "we don't know" is a cop out. Like I said, logic leaves us with only two choices, that fulfil the entire spectrum of possibility. Either it all came from "something" (eternal) or "nothing". Nothing is a contradiction. That something is what I name god. This doesn't prove the rest of it, religion and a benevolent god and all, but my point was only to question how all this could be.


----------



## YOURMOMWASHERE (Sep 20, 2009)

^ well I also believe in a supreme "being" aka the creator. But it could be anything, even a blob of energy just floating around in space. It sure as hell isn't an old white guy with a beard and blue eyes. 

And if we don't know exactly what it is, why worship it? Why pray to it? Why say god help me? If there is a god he don't care about you, or even the whole planet what so ever. The universe is too big for that shit.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

The old white guy with beard and blue eyes thing is a metaphor.. Christianity doesn't ACTUALLY believe that God even has an appearance. By definition, he would be beyond comprehension in terms of a universe created by him, let alone a bearded white man. It's just a way of metaphorical thinking about him, and something artists liked to use. I agree, "He" could be an amorphous blob of energy, or more likely something completely incomprehensible.

As to why worship him (and it's not just about that, it's about leading an ethical life with certain principles).. that is where the personal journey comes in. Science won't convince you there, just follow the examples and the lives of people that truly gain strength from it. Listen to their words when they tell you how it helped them, instead of immediately dismissing them as stupid or ignorant. Listen to the fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach whenever you help another human being. Maybe you'll see why then. Because maybe "he" does listen, if you make an effort to live positively. Maybe it does make a difference. Either way, is that as ridiculous/uneducated/stupid a possibility as everybody here makes it out to be? Specially when you yourself admitted you believe he exists?


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

We dont know is not a cop out at all, it is acceptance that we dont know.


----------



## daitrong (May 27, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> lol, I didn't even bother reading your whole thesis, because your whole argument proves it's naivete in the first line. No shit, things in space work the way they do because of gravity and physics. BUT WHY DO PHYSICS AND GRAVITY WORK THE WAY THEY DO? Why do scientific laws work together so beautifully to create planets, with water, that can sustain life, that balance each other PERFECTLY in ecosystems and so on? You look at physics and say "SEE!! Physics explains why Physics works this way!!"? It's childish, I'm not arguing science I'm arguing that science and the laws of reality could've worked ANY random way except the way they do and shit as delicate as life would never exist. You just state the facts and then congratulate yourself with the unfounded assumption that they created themselves. Perhaps you should tell that to Einstein, the greatest scientist that ever lived ... he didn't believe in Christianity, but he DID believe in a higher intelligence that put it all together.
> 
> As far as Noah's flood or Genesis and that kind of thing, read my line that some "Bible literalism" may be irrational. That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. And Genesis is metaphorical way of explaining creation, not literal ... but if you look at the sequence of events, that is exactly how they occured. First there was light (Big Bang), then stars, then a planet with water (Earth was first covered with water), then land rose, then marine life, then animals and finally man. Yes, a 2000 year old book explains the exact order of how events happened since the big bang. Also, "6 days" is obviously a metaphorical time frame, since our "days" are measured by the very earth and sun that didn't even exist at the time Genesis refers.
> 
> The original bible does not exist? Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you know they've been carbon dated for authenticity back to the exact time periods they refer? Do you realize they are almost exactly identical to the KJV Bible in use todayl


Wow, as I have said before. The concepts that you find irrational comes from the fact that you fail to research the topic your. Instead, you make conclusions based on your present knowledge--which isn't very comprehensive. This is the SAME problem most Christians have. They insert easy answers to complicated questions because they fail to simply research the matter for themselves. It's just easier to say that god did it than to go learn about it, right? Right! So what you're saying is that how did the universe and it's laws come about, correct? There must be something that caused A to arrive at B, right? *That something can't arrived from nothing, right? * There are fundamental laws in physics that states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The matter and energy in the universe today has always existed. As far as we can tell that the universe as always existed in some way or form. As far as science can tell, that matter in this universe is eternal. It has always existed. This is a hard topic for Christians to comprehend because they always want to say that god created the universe from nothing. That he was the initial mediator of life. That in itself causes a problem. It begs the question that ask, "where did god come from"? If you say that nothing could have arrived in this universe without something causing it, then what created god. Surely, god is something. Some people I've spoke with says that god is outside the realm of causality. That he doesn't have to abide by the rules of causality. (cause and effect) How can that be? How can you cause something, and yet be outside of that cause? How can god be outside of the universe and cause it to happen? That question in itself doesn't make sense. 



Are you saying the original bible is the old testament and not the new testament? Surely the New testament comes from Judaism (Old Testament), but most Christians are adamant that the Old Testament doesn't represent the views of God / Jesus. Unless you condone, ****, murder, genocide, torture as a daily part of your spiritual belief. Are you even aware of the atrocities that god ordered his people to do and him himself committed? To most Christians the New Testament, thus Christianity is the true religion that Jesus wanted us to follow--not Judaism. Actually the Old testament doesn't even talk that Jesus is the "messiah". Jesus Christ is the messiah in the New Testament, but not the Old. 

So, then you must referring that the Dead Sea Scrolls is the original copy to the New Testament Bible? That statement is just ridiculous and makes no sense. By-the-way, the Dead Sea Scrolls is not the original of anything. They just happen to be a fragmented collection of really ancient manuscripts.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

I've seen a few people mention "natural selection" which is actually a fairly new term to me as i'm in my first year of Psychology.

I am inclined to believe this theory since it is not based on any supernatural belief, just scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence suggests dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago. What i don't understand about the Christian faith (maybe it's just fanatics i am not sure) are the individuals who believe they only existed thousands of years ago and not millions. There's zero evidence to suggest this theory, none whatsoever. I first heard of Christians believing this with all the Sarah Palin hype, i was confused how one can go against something proven with a theory that has no evidence to back it up.

If there is a supernatural person or force that created life on this planet, they did a pretty bad job of it. My cats have a healthier diet then 2/3 of the world population.

Every day all over the world children starve to death, get raped, murdered, beaten. Same with women, the elderly, and mentally challenged people. Why would any "God" allow this to be, the most vulnerable being subject to many unspeakable acts every second of every day. Is this where the "Devil" comes into play?

The number one causes of death on this planet besides starvation, all root from religion from one angle or another. In Israel, Palistine, Ireland, Iran, Iraq, various African countries, even in North America over the past 100 years you could fill an average sized country with all those who have been murdered due to religious reasons. 

Which is ironic to me since almost all religions preach peace and acceptance, yet the masses take it to the next level and lose their tolerance. The situation in Afghanistan is a great example. Every day there are suicide bombings, killing many many innocent people.....and they use religion for the basis of their hate and willingness to take their own life in order to have others lose theirs. Just messed up to me.

I'm not here to call any religious person or their beliefs crap, nor do i look down on anyone with different beliefs then me. I just think it's bred into so many kids these days, promising an afterlife if they follow the bible, and goto confession etc etc. Christianity does bug me with all the molesting going on in the Vatican and all over the Americas.

None of these convicted molesters ever goto jail, they just get transferred. I would assume that a preacher molesting a young boy would be a mortal sin in the eyes of the bible in many ways, am i wrong? Too much bombing by Muslims and too much molesting done by the Christian Priests makes me give props to Charles Darwin more and more.


----------



## daitrong (May 27, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> The old white guy with beard and blue eyes thing is a metaphor.. Christianity doesn't ACTUALLY believe that God even has an appearance. By definition, he would be beyond comprehension in terms of a universe created by him, let alone a bearded white man. It's just a way of metaphorical thinking about him, and something artists liked to use. I agree, "He" could be an amorphous blob of energy, or more likely something completely incomprehensible.
> 
> As to why worship him (and it's not just about that, it's about leading an ethical life with certain principles).. that is where the personal journey comes in. Science won't convince you there, just follow the examples and the lives of people that truly gain strength from it. Listen to their words when they tell you how it helped them, instead of immediately dismissing them as stupid or ignorant. Listen to the fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach whenever you help another human being. Maybe you'll see why then. Because maybe "he" does listen, if you make an effort to live positively. Maybe it does make a difference. Either way, is that as ridiculous/uneducated/stupid a possibility as everybody here makes it out to be? Specially when you yourself admitted you believe he exists?


Prayers do not work. At least not in the way that most Christians believe. Praying for something to happen does not increases its chance of working. There have already been experiments done to prove this. Go look it up. The internet and school library is your friend. Feel free to research the topic more.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

> Exactly, that contradicts with Atheism right there, by your own argument. There is no way something can be created out nothing. Even energy can only come from matter and matter from energy, something can never come from NOTHING. So where did all this energy and matter stuff come from? The only explanation is SOMETHING, and I call that something God. Well then who created God? That's just it, he's (the "he" is just a way of saying it, it's quite incomprehensible to put such an entity in normal terms) ALWAYS existed. That's the something that's always been there, always. I know it's hard to thing of something just being, not being created, not starting or ending somewhere, it's almost incomprehensible to our minds. Almost incomprehensible, but not a contradiction, unlike something coming from nothing which is the Atheist argument. And those are the only two options. Sorry if the logic is confusing, but it's based on on proven scientific philosophical argument principles.


First, I never said I'm an atheist. I'm a theorist. I have an ever evolving opinion on religion and my beliefs change with that. I do not follow an organized religion, I have my own. My beliefs just gravitate more toward the side of atheism in that I do not believe in a conventional "God." I don't believe there's an entity that created everything, or an event that did so either. I'm not sure HOW to explain it, and I'm completely fine admitting that. I'm not going to force my side of an argument on a person because of that either. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, which many people seem to have trouble not doing, I'm simply stating what I believe. I think it's kind of ridiculous, completely disrespectful and a breaking of the laws of human life to force an opinion like that on people. Not calling anyone out in here, just saying it's why I don't believe in churches or religious sects. They're all cults, some are just bigger than others. Every one has their own agendas and always has, many of the things they preach infringe on natural human order and human civil rights and I despise that.

I'm fine with people believing what ever the hell they want, it's their right, but I start caring when they start preaching or it starts infringing on my own with people acting Holier than Thou and shit. I can't count the times I've been called a heathen, told I'm going to hell or that I'm worthless etc for not being a Christian or believing what others do. You think I don't have morals and guidelines? Newsflash, they aren't exclusive to religion. People naturally have a set of morals. There's nothing in the ten commandments that wouldn't be in a "non believing" person's moral set outside of the worshipping false idols crap. 




BTW, anyone who is a reallllllly by the book Christian and believes Christianity is 100% correct 100% of the time should watch this:
















Its about half an hour, but it's an eye opener to say the least. Especially for those i referenced in my previous post about being in a religion because it's been passed down through generations.


EDIT: Rationalist, you're being just as close minded as those you accuse of being close minded. It's people like you that make the Atheist community as a whole look like ignorant assholes. Seriously, people have the right to believe what they want, even if it goes against _your_ logic. As, in all actuality, as of right now with the evidence we have, it's far more likely there is a God (not necessarily in the Christian sense, but SOMETHING that created something), as the laws of science themselves say that nothing can be created out of nothing. So either our science is flawed or we have even less of an understanding of the universe than we think.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

TraMaI said:


> First, I never said I'm an atheist. I'm a theorist. I have an ever evolving opinion on religion and my beliefs change with that. I do not follow an organized religion, I have my own. My beliefs just gravitate more toward the side of atheism in that I do not believe in a conventional "God." I don't believe there's an entity that created everything, or an event that did so either. I'm not sure HOW to explain it, and I'm completely fine admitting that. I'm not going to force my side of an argument on a person because of that either. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, which many people seem to have trouble not doing, I'm simply stating what I believe. I think it's kind of ridiculous, completely disrespectful and a breaking of the laws of human life to force an opinion like that on people. Not calling anyone out in here, just saying it's why I don't believe in churches or religious sects. They're all cults, some are just bigger than others. Every one has their own agendas and always has, many of the things they preach infringe on natural human order and human civil rights and I despise that.
> 
> I'm fine with people believing what ever the hell they want, it's their right, but I start caring when they start preaching or it starts infringing on my own with people acting Holier than Thou and shit. I can't count the times I've been called a heathen, told I'm going to hell or that I'm worthless etc for not being a Christian or believing what others do. You think I don't have morals and guidelines? Newsflash, they aren't exclusive to religion. People naturally have a set of morals. There's nothing in the ten commandments that wouldn't be in a "non believing" person's moral set outside of the worshipping false idols crap.
> 
> ...


Zeitgeist is an excellent video. Christians will be faster then the speed of light to say things like "Zeitgeist has been debunked" or "The makers of that film are Satanic" or my personal favorite, "Jews made that film!"

Facts are, there are many many religions out there and many have very similar origins. In my views, and having already known this before i watched Zeitgeist... i believe the Son of God started out as the Sun of "God". The Sun gave the Egyptians light, the ability to make their crops grow and therefore it's what they worshiped. Thats the only supernatural item or person that has been worshiped that we know 100% that it exists. 

I have no problem with that being as without the Sun we would all be dead. This is fact. The Sun might not be aware or all-knowing but it keeps us alive.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

My personal God:


http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

srsbsns.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> The old white guy with beard and blue eyes thing is a metaphor.. Christianity doesn't ACTUALLY believe that God even has an appearance. By definition, he would be beyond comprehension in terms of a universe created by him, let alone a bearded white man. It's just a way of metaphorical thinking about him, and something artists liked to use. I agree, "He" could be an amorphous blob of energy, or more likely something completely incomprehensible.


Plenty of christians do tend to think this, there are a zillion sects of christianity and their beliefs vary. Some also think jesus had long straight flowing light brown hair and blue eyes.


----------



## YOURMOMWASHERE (Sep 20, 2009)

praise the lawd


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Plenty of christians do tend to think this, there are a zillion sects of christianity and their beliefs vary. Some also think jesus had long straight flowing light brown hair and blue eyes.


I figure he looks identical to Mel Gibson.


----------



## YOURMOMWASHERE (Sep 20, 2009)

joshua7789 said:


> I figure he looks identical to Mel Gibson.


Morgan freeman please.


----------



## Rationalist (Oct 15, 2006)

TraMaI said:


> As, in all actuality, as of right now with the evidence we have, it's far more likely there is a God (not necessarily in the Christian sense, but SOMETHING that created something), as the laws of science themselves say that nothing can be created out of nothing. So either our science is flawed or we have even less of an understanding of the universe than we think.


and you call me ignorant...


----------



## hellholming (Jun 13, 2009)

as far as I'm concerned, I think that organized religion sucks... If you want to believe in something, go ahead. But don't try to push that on me, and start wars over it.


----------



## daitrong (May 27, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> You're the one being stupid. I'm arguing the grand scheme of things philosophically, and you keep throwing trivial shit as explanation. Oh really chemicals mix to create chemicals to create bacteria that evolved into life? So that's an example of something coming from nothing then? Wrong. Chemicals are SOMETHING, not NOTHING. They exist. This is still an example of SOMETHING changing into SOMETHING, not something coming from nothing. What about where chemicals came from? From atoms and molecules i.e. SOMETHING. Go all the way back .. where did atoms and molecules (matter) come from? The Big Bang. Well where'd that come from. My answer is a supreme being that has always existed. Yours is ..... uh.... bacteria ... came... uh.. ok. Or nothing? Also, we know for a fact that this universe has not always existed... it came with the big bang, so we can't argue that it has been eternal either.


For one, in an argument such as this you cannot use philosophical or abstract evidence to prove your point. Yon cannot say that god is beyond anything mere humans can fathom. That is just the most ignorant thing any Christian can say. Even the disciples who wrote about god never mentioned god in that light. You are reinterpreting / altering how god is represented in order for it to fit your ideas and beliefs. Or in this case, to back up your opinions--which holds no merit because no one can prove you wrong. Your answers are so abstract that even you yourself can't prove it right. Nowhere does the gospels of Mark, John, Luke, Mathew or the other books of the new testament state this. (Or maybe you're referring to the Old Testament?) Subjective claims can not be verified as right or wrong. They are simply opinions. If you want to prove your point, you need to provide objective evidence of your claims. Preferably, not from the bible, because that would be circular logic. Any logic that is circular is not logic at all. The more you talk the more it is clear to everyone that you obviously have not done your research regarding the topic you are talking about. You are not dumb, you just have that same characteristic that most Christians do. And that is, if god said it, then I believe it. 

You state that chemicals evolved to form bacteria? How can a chemical evolve to form a bacteria? Bacteria are unicellular organisms, who for the most part require the existence of a host. They don't come from chemicals. Chemicals such as carcinogens or drugs have the ability to cause bacteria to evolve, (a useful virulence factor) but it does not have the ability to create bacteria. Matter came from the big bang? The matter that was infinitely condense prior to the big bang (there was never really a bang) was* always* there. Time and time again, every scientific experiment regarding this matter shows that the matter and energy we see today has always existed. It is eternal. The Big bang is simply a theory explaining the expansion of the universe. It is not some magical phenomenon that brought matter and energy into this universe. The universe in itself has always existed, but just a fraction of the size it is today. 

Also, what makes you think you can simply insert "god" as the instigator? What proof do you have to this? You are simply adding your subjective opinion into a space that requires a objective answer. You can not back up your beliefs without adding adding a subjective twist to it. That's all there is to it. To a non-believer, your subjective answer is irrelevant.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

daitrong said:


> For one, in an argument such as this you cannot use philosophical or abstract evidence to prove your point. Yon cannot say that god is beyond anything mere humans can fathom. That is just the most ignorant thing any Christian can say. Even the disciples who wrote about god never mentioned god in that light. You are reinterpreting / altering how god is represented in order for it to fit your ideas and beliefs. Or in this case, to back up your opinions--which holds no merit because no one can prove you wrong. Your answers are so abstract that even you yourself can't prove it right. Nowhere does the gospels of Mark, John, Luke, Mathew or the other books of the new testament state this. (Or maybe you're referring to the Old Testament?) Subjective claims can not be verified as right or wrong. They are simply opinions. If you want to prove your point, you need to provide objective evidence of your claims. Preferably, not from the bible, because that would be circular logic. Any logic that is circular is not logic at all. The more you talk the more it is clear to everyone that you obviously have not done your research regarding the topic you are talking about. You are not dumb, you just have that same characteristic that most Christians do. And that is, if god said it, then I believe it.
> 
> You state that chemicals evolved to form bacteria? How can a chemical evolve to form a bacteria? Bacteria are unicellular organisms, who for the most part require the existence of a host. They don't come from chemicals. Chemicals such as carcinogens or drugs have the ability to cause bacteria to evolve, (a useful virulence factor) but it does not have the ability to create bacteria. Matter came from the big bang? The matter that was infinitely condense prior to the big bang (there was never really a bang) was* always* there. Time and time again, every scientific experiment regarding this matter shows that the matter and energy we see today has always existed. It is eternal. The Big bang is simply a theory explaining the expansion of the universe. It is not some magical phenomenon that brought matter and energy into this universe. The universe in itself has always existed, but just a fraction of the size it is today.
> 
> Also, what makes you think you can simply insert "god" as the instigator? What proof do you have to this? You are simply adding your subjective opinion into a space that requires a objective answer. You can not back up your beliefs without adding adding a subjective twist to it. That's all there is to it. To a non-believer, your subjective answer is irrelevant.


Remind me not to get into a war of intellect with you, sir.:smoke01:


----------



## Biowza (May 22, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> You're the one being stupid. I'm arguing the grand scheme of things philosophically, and you keep throwing trivial shit as explanation. Oh really chemicals mix to create chemicals to create bacteria that evolved into life? So that's an example of something coming from nothing then? Wrong. Chemicals are SOMETHING, not NOTHING. They exist. This is still an example of SOMETHING changing into SOMETHING, not something coming from nothing. What about where chemicals came from? From atoms and molecules i.e. SOMETHING. Go all the way back .. where did atoms and molecules (matter) come from? The Big Bang. Well where'd that come from. My answer is a supreme being that has always existed. Yours is ..... uh.... bacteria ... came... uh.. ok. Or nothing? Also, we know for a fact that this universe has not always existed... it came with the big bang, so we can't argue that it has been eternal either.


You don't have any experience doing any science at all do you? Each of your posts outdoes the next in terms of ignorance. Those with 0 knowledge on a subject shouldn't make calls against those who actually do.




> Except "we don't know" is a cop out. Like I said, logic leaves us with only two choices, that fulfil the entire spectrum of possibility. Either it all came from "something" (eternal) or "nothing". Nothing is a contradiction. That something is what I name god. This doesn't prove the rest of it, religion and a benevolent god and all, but my point was only to question how all this could be.


It's not a cop-out. How about we change the "we don't know" to a "we don't know.....yet". Religion asserts that we don't know and will never know, hence we must make random guess X to explain phenomenon Y. Science on the other hand, asserts that we don't know yet and will continue will all efforts to formulate ideas and to achieve empirical data to legitimise those ideas. The same thing happened with lighting, the bronze age goat farmers thought this was the "wrath of god" and that no-one would ever know what it is....wrong. Science comes along and explains it. I could say the same thing for the Black plague, all human diseases, natural phenomena, evolution...whatever. Each time some feeble minded moron has asserted that 'we cant ever know...hence GOD' and each time they've been proven wrong. 

I was going to make a massive post on this thread, but by the time I got home, there had already been like another 50 posts on top of what I wanted to quote so yeah. So I shall summarise all previous posts (except for the correct ones) as such...


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

TraMaI said:


> BTW, anyone who is a reallllllly by the book Christian and believes Christianity is 100% correct 100% of the time should watch this:


First of all, yes Zeitgeist has been debunked, at least the religious parts. See I can post youtube too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej_coXEnKEI&feature=related

The fact is that it blatantly lies without substantiating facts and inserts claims about different religions that have ZERO basis in reality. But that's ok, we believe everything we see on a youtube video without researching it. 



HexRei said:


> Plenty of christians do tend to think this, there are a zillion sects of christianity and their beliefs vary. Some also think jesus had long straight flowing light brown hair and blue eyes.


Show me one sect that actually literally preaches this (that God is literally an old white guy). Link me to a website for a Church that states this as a core set of beliefs. Oh that's right, you can't ... because it's just a metaphor, and a comforting one. It's just another unfounded claim atheists use to ridicule Christians. There will always be "some" that believe ridiculous things because they are simple people, but NO church teaches such things, it's just a metaphor to get it across to the masses.



daitrong said:


> For one, in an argument such as this you cannot use philosophical or abstract evidence to prove your point. Yon cannot say that god is beyond anything mere humans can fathom. That is just the most ignorant thing any Christian can say. Even the disciples who wrote about god never mentioned god in that light. You are reinterpreting / altering how god is represented in order for it to fit your ideas and beliefs. Or in this case, to back up your opinions--which holds no merit because no one can prove you wrong. Your answers are so abstract that even you yourself can't prove it right. Nowhere does the gospels of Mark, John, Luke, Mathew or the other books of the new testament state this. (Or maybe you're referring to the Old Testament?) Subjective claims can not be verified as right or wrong. They are simply opinions. If you want to prove your point, you need to provide objective evidence of your claims. Preferably, not from the bible, because that would be circular logic. Any logic that is circular is not logic at all. The more you talk the more it is clear to everyone that you obviously have not done your research regarding the topic you are talking about. You are not dumb, you just have that same characteristic that most Christians do. And that is, if god said it, then I believe it.



No, actually catholic Church prescribes this very definition of God in their Catechism. The Eastern Orthodox also has a similar tradition, and many others support it, it's just not something you try to explain to the common man... it's much easier for them to understand in metaphorical terms. As far as the bible goes, the very word "Yahweh" is Hebrew for "I am". God's name isn't really a name, it's a clue as to his nature, something that just "is", that always existed.

I have already given non-biblical logic for the belief system too, based on commonly accepted scientific principles of logic. Just because it irks you to accept them does not make them unscientific.



Rationalist said:


> and you call me ignorant...


Yes. Ignorant, pompous and full of yourself.



hellholming said:


> as far as I'm concerned, I think that organized religion sucks... If you want to believe in something, go ahead. But don't try to push that on me, and start wars over it.


Fair enough, don't shove yours down mine either. Atheists have become the very things they supposedly abhor ... I can't go to a single forum, stumbleupon page, public forum (in the real world), without some ignorant trying to sound intellectual by ridiculing Christianity and how it's a cult, despite all the logic I just presented here for my belief system. If that isn't shoving your belief down others' throats, I don't know what it is.



daitrong said:


> You state that chemicals evolved to form bacteria? How can a chemical evolve to form a bacteria? Bacteria are unicellular organisms, who for the most part require the existence of a host. They don't come from chemicals. Chemicals such as carcinogens or drugs have the ability to cause bacteria to evolve, (a useful virulence factor) but it does not have the ability to create bacteria. Matter came from the big bang? The matter that was infinitely condense prior to the big bang (there was never really a bang) was* always* there. Time and time again, every scientific experiment regarding this matter shows that the matter and energy we see today has always existed. It is eternal. The Big bang is simply a theory explaining the expansion of the universe. It is not some magical phenomenon that brought matter and energy into this universe. The universe in itself has always existed, but just a fraction of the size it is today.


First of all, I wasn't the one who stated that chemicals combine to make bacteria, I was responding to a post by another "intellectual". Second of all, take some classes on the origin of life.. the current theory on the origin of life IS that chemicals (hydrocarbon compounds, water, etc) were struck by high volumes of electrical energy and combined to make the first DNA/RNA structures, which formed the first bacteria, which then evolved into all other life from there. So yes, in a nutshell, bacteria first came from chemicals, hundereds of millions of years ago.

Also, the big bang is a theory most used to explain the ORIGINS of the universe, not just the expansion. This is common knowledge ... show me a quote that says the matter supposedly already existed. It just says that it all started from one unimaginably tiny point. 



daitrong said:


> Also, what makes you think you can simply insert "god" as the instigator? What proof do you have to this? You are simply adding your subjective opinion into a space that requires a objective answer. You can not back up your beliefs without adding adding a subjective twist to it. That's all there is to it. To a non-believer, your subjective answer is irrelevant.


Nothing, I just choose to call that something God, you can call it "somethingness" or whatever you want, the point I was trying to make was that it makes logical sense to assume that there is indeed something OUTSIDE of this universe that would have set it all off, unlike the "this is all there is" mindset of atheism.



TraMaI said:


> EDIT: Rationalist, you're being just as close minded as those you accuse of being close minded. It's people like you that make the Atheist community as a whole look like ignorant assholes. Seriously, people have the right to believe what they want, even if it goes against _your_ logic. As, in all actuality, as of right now with the evidence we have, it's far more likely there is a God (not necessarily in the Christian sense, but SOMETHING that created something), as the laws of science themselves say that nothing can be created out of nothing. So either our science is flawed or we have even less of an understanding of the universe than we think.


Exactly sir, well put.



rygu said:


> Zeitgeist is an excellent video. Christians will be faster then the speed of light to say things like "Zeitgeist has been debunked" or "The makers of that film are Satanic" or my personal favorite, "Jews made that film!"
> 
> Facts are, there are many many religions out there and many have very similar origins. In my views, and having already known this before i watched Zeitgeist... i believe the Son of God started out as the Sun of "God". The Sun gave the Egyptians light, the ability to make their crops grow and therefore it's what they worshiped. Thats the only supernatural item or person that has been worshiped that we know 100% that it exists.


Except that video takes sun worship and inserts blatantly false claims like "Virgin Birth" and "Resurrection", to mention just a few, into these traditions that just didn't exist. These are blatant lies, show me one historical page that substantiates these claims. Watch the counterarguments video I posted. 

And there is no proof for your opinion, yes opinion, that the "son of God" worship started out as the "sun of God" worship based on nothing but a rhyme (son/sun) in a language (English) that didn't even exist at the time these religions originated. That is silly.



Biowza said:


> You don't have any experience doing any science at all do you? Each of your posts outdoes the next in terms of ignorance. Those with 0 knowledge on a subject shouldn't make calls against those who actually do.


No, actually I'm a 26 year old computer scientist with a minor in Astronomy who graduated from Iowa State with a 3.3 GPA. I'm quite familiar with the workings of science and logic, using it as a daily requirement of my job the last 4 years. My Astronomy thesis was on the origin of dark matter, dark energy, and the big bang, so I know a little about what I'm talking about unlike a lot of the wikipedia and youtube "scientists" here. I know plenty of Christians that are PhDs, Doctors and so on as well. What are your qualifications? You seem to be the ignorant one making claims on subjects YOU don't know about but have only read small newspaper articles on. Your condescension knows no bounds, such a self-annointed intellectual with a superiority complex. Oh and nice 93847987th use of the facepalm image.. grow up.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

joshua7789 said:


> I figure he looks identical to Mel Gibson.


nay sir!



YOURMOMWASHERE said:


> Morgan freeman please.


wrong as well!!

god obviously looks like:










and anyone who thinks differently is *wrong*, ill prove it to you. does your god have sexy appendages? mine does, superiority biotches!

in all seriousness Liddellianenko put up a much better defense than I thought I would see on this forum, but the best debater alive still loses this debate when he argues from Liddellianenko's side. props to Liddellianenko, and goddamn your name is long


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

I'm sorry but I'm getting tired of this thread. Theres 3 or 4 people in here whose opinions backed with validity and knowledge of the subject who I'd love to talk to. The rest is just trivial bull shit. I don't want to sift through pages to find the few gems. Who the hell posted Zeit Geist? That entire film is a pile of shit and has been debunked to hell. Angsty teenage kids now think they've been enlightened. Great...

Liddelianenko, I'm really impressed by your posts man 


*EDIT* 

In science, general relativity fails to explain things on the quantum level. When the equations for general relativity are applied on a microscopic scale, they fail to accurately predict what is going to happen, because often times an infinity will pop up as an answer. When you get infinity as an answer, to paraphrase Richard Feynman, you fucked up. This means that all answers are the right answer. You can't really predict anything from that.

Our postulate - science is a religion. No, not scientology, but science, basically, the set of physical laws which scientists believe govern our universe. The laws, which are referred to as "the currently accepted laws of physics," are as of right now invalid, because they fail to explain certain microscopic behaviors - and if they can, they don't explain the macroscopic behaviors well. Superstring theory is close, but it's not solved; we don't have the math for it. Science is made of believers, and we then came to the realization that it as a religion (of... very smart people).

Math IS science. It's the language that scientists use. Base 10 numerical language is the most commonly encountered language spoken by scientists. If any of you have taken a calculus-based physics course, it is pretty obvious that math arose from science, which then recursively helped answer the questions that scientists couldn't solve.

Back to the infinity point - when you come up with infinity as an answer, something is wrong with your equation, to classical physicists. Quantum physicists can deal with infinity, but they can't deal with normal answers well.

It has been suggested by a number of Buddhists and Christians that the "Holy Spirit" in Christianity and the "Chi" in Buddhism (yeah, the stuff that Goku fires his Kamehameha with) are the same thing. They are either "God's will manifest" or "Energy flowing through a human (and all things)" We would postulate that "Electrons," the negative energy ions in Science, are the same thing.

This brings us to our point. Nirvana, God, Infinity - these are all strikingly similar. They're just interpreted in different ways.

I believe that in the Lord's Prayer of Christianity, the line "thy kingdom come" is often misinterpreted. It's not saying "Heaven is up in the sky, waiting for you" it's saying "Heaven COMES TO YOU." God lives in Heaven, and when Heaven is within you, God lives within you.

Isn't that very similar to the Buddhist concept of Nirvana? That enlightenment comes to you? When you live a life of mindfulness, you become one with the universe, and you then are enlightened.

And isn't that what the major debate in science and religion has been for as long as they've existed? That any mutually exclusive explaination can't be right, but anything that's not mutually exclusive fails to explain the world - just like the two major schisms in science, quantum physics and general relativity; Christianity; Buddhism; etc.

Science is a religion because it's made up of believers, and they believe in something that's very intelligent, but still fundamentally incomplete.

Seeing isn't believing; believing is seeing.

I think it's pretty interesting. I didn't write that, I just think its an interesting outlook. 

One thing I'd like to add is the similarity that both concepts for lack of a better word, have beliefs which were centred around the key figures of said concepts. I.e Jesus, the prophet Mohammed and Siddhartha Gautama. Similarly you have Einstien,Newton,Hawking and Plato etc.

At the end of the day, most people are not interested in challenging something they've already learnt.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

*EDIT* 

In science, general relativity fails to explain things on the quantum level. When the equations for general relativity are applied on a microscopic scale, they fail to accurately predict what is going to happen, because often times an infinity will pop up as an answer. When you get infinity as an answer, to paraphrase Richard Feynman, you fucked up. This means that all answers are the right answer. You can't really predict anything from that.

Our postulate - science is a religion. No, not scientology, but science, basically, the set of physical laws which scientists believe govern our universe. The laws, which are referred to as "the currently accepted laws of physics," are as of right now invalid, because they fail to explain certain microscopic behaviors - and if they can, they don't explain the macroscopic behaviors well. Superstring theory is close, but it's not solved; we don't have the math for it. Science is made of believers, and we then came to the realization that it as a religion (of... very smart people).

Math IS science. It's the language that scientists use. Base 10 numerical language is the most commonly encountered language spoken by scientists. If any of you have taken a calculus-based physics course, it is pretty obvious that math arose from science, which then recursively helped answer the questions that scientists couldn't solve.

Back to the infinity point - when you come up with infinity as an answer, something is wrong with your equation, to classical physicists. Quantum physicists can deal with infinity, but they can't deal with normal answers well.

It has been suggested by a number of Buddhists and Christians that the "Holy Spirit" in Christianity and the "Chi" in Buddhism (yeah, the stuff that Goku fires his Kamehameha with) are the same thing. They are either "God's will manifest" or "Energy flowing through a human (and all things)" We would postulate that "Electrons," the negative energy ions in Science, are the same thing.

This brings us to our point. Nirvana, God, Infinity - these are all strikingly similar. They're just interpreted in different ways.

I believe that in the Lord's Prayer of Christianity, the line "thy kingdom come" is often misinterpreted. It's not saying "Heaven is up in the sky, waiting for you" it's saying "Heaven COMES TO YOU." God lives in Heaven, and when Heaven is within you, God lives within you.

Isn't that very similar to the Buddhist concept of Nirvana? That enlightenment comes to you? When you live a life of mindfulness, you become one with the universe, and you then are enlightened.

And isn't that what the major debate in science and religion has been for as long as they've existed? That any mutually exclusive explaination can't be right, but anything that's not mutually exclusive fails to explain the world - just like the two major schisms in science, quantum physics and general relativity; Christianity; Buddhism; etc.

Science is a religion because it's made up of believers, and they believe in something that's very intelligent, but still fundamentally incomplete.

Seeing isn't believing; believing is seeing.

I think it's pretty interesting. I didn't write that, I just think its an interesting outlook. 

One thing I'd like to add is the similarity that both concepts for lack of a better word, have beliefs which were centred around the key figures of said concepts. I.e Jesus, the prophet Mohammed and Siddhartha Gautama. Similarly you have Einstien,Newton,Hawking and Plato etc.

At the end of the day, most people are not interested in challenging something they've already learnt.

The edit function wasn't working for me, so if a Mod or Admin could do it for me, would be muchos appreciated


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

^^ I don't want to even get into how biased your conclusions are. Math is not a result of science, you are just spouting out shit to make yourself look smart. Math was employed by Greeks as a way of studying musical theory. Pythagoras, the guy who has a theorem named after himself, spent his time studying the mathematical relationships of notes. Pythagoras was born in 570 BC. Science, the modern method of empiricism, is a result of the rationalist movement of the last 500 years. The basic philosophies of ancient times all revolved around supernatural influences and had nothing to do with rationalism, empiricism or science. Secondly, you know jack shit about quantum mechanics, let alone why a mathematical equation results in infinity, just reading your posts is insulting. 

Science is not a religion, it is a method of manipulating frameworks of information. No scientist will adhere to believe that any theory is perfect, the blind faith that religion is based upon is exactly what science opposes. Someone who supports science will ascertain that their belief structure is entirely flexible, someone who supports religion has an entirely inflexible belief system based on irrational thinking. You quote pop science without truly understanding the topic area, because if you did you wouldn't talk about microscopic misunderstandings of physics and string theory the way you do. By the way, string theory is considered by most physicists to be an erroneous theorem as it has already received extreme modification and even name changes (brane-theory, m-theory).

You're discussion of dualities, which you are trying to get at, is comical at best. I suggest educating yourself more and talking less.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Did you read the bit where I said I didn't write this? So you clearly didn't read it all... hence there is no point replying to anything you have to say. Good day.

Oh and just one quick point, how do you know science wasn't happening at the same time if not before hand and maths arose, could have been a universal language to help emplify almost anything. Think the wheel around 4000BC.


----------



## name goes here (Aug 15, 2007)

I'm sorry but it is quiet clear that Liddellianenko is right. Because he is the only one not stooping to name calling.
Other than that I don't care for snobby back slapping either.
People are allowed their opinions.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

FredFish1 said:


> Did you read the bit where I said I didn't write this? So you clearly didn't read it all... hence there is no point replying to anything you have to say. Good day.
> 
> Oh and just one quick point, how do you know science wasn't happening at the same time if not before hand and maths arose, could have been a universal language to help emplify almost anything. Think the wheel around 4000BC.


-how do I know science wasn't happening? easy, science arose from John Locke and empiricism around 300 years ago. To question society and religion within the majority of ancient societies was considered heresy punishable of death. Galileo was persecuted for his theories about the universe, and that was within a 1000 years ago. People viewed the world through Paganism and mysticism, basically everything was controlled by a divine entity, heck they even worshiped the leaders as deities and sacrificed serfs to the gods. That's not science. That'd be like asking how I know Christianity wasn't happening in ancient Greece.

-I only read your last post, I just scrolled to the bottom and read the final post on the page. Do you think I was just guessing correctly at the things in your post? 

-You mean exemplify

-If you want to present a counterpoint against my 2 arguments with holes in them go ahead, I am willing to listen to reason.


----------



## hellholming (Jun 13, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> Fair enough, don't shove yours down mine either.


I never do. Many of my friends are Christians, and I respect their beliefs just as they respect mine.  "Whatever floats your boat".


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

LOL. Science wasn't occurring until 300 years ago? What on earth are you talking about. Oh because it didn't have an official label in a text book. Science has been happening from day 1 of Human existences, on a minuscule scale compared to now a days. Please... the wheel? The discovery and use of fire? What were the Romans doing? Distilling liquids? Creation of aqueducts? Basic medicinal procedures? So effectively you think science is 300 years old? LMAO.

So what if science was repressed? It still happens. Paedophiles are hated by every nation and society in the world (probably some exception somewhere.) Punishable by prison or death for the most minor infraction. It still happens...


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

FredFish1 said:


> LOL. Science wasn't occurring until 300 years ago? What on earth are you talking about. Oh because it didn't have an official label in a text book. Science has been happening from day 1 of Human existences, on a minuscule scale compared to now a days. Please... the wheel? The discovery and use of fire? What were the Romans doing? Distilling liquids? Creation of aqueducts? Basic medicinal procedures? So effectively you think science is 300 years old? LMAO.
> 
> So what if science was repressed? It still happens. Paedophiles are hated by every nation and society in the world (probably some exception somewhere.) Punishable by prison or death for the most minor infraction. It still happens...


-The examples you give involve deductive and inductive reasoning. (e.g. I rub two sticks together, that makes heat, heat makes fire... rub sticks together to make fire)

-Your previous post was clearly discussing the philosophical nature of science, a construct of thinking only prevalent in the last 300 years. This construct arose from the industrial and social revolutions in Europe around the 17th and 18th centuries. So if you want to argue that reasoning skills were being employed before the appearance of empiricism go ahead, I won't disagree with you. But if you want to argue about the philosophical ramifications of scientific ideologies from more than 300 years ago I am going to have to say you are simply unable to adhere to logical thinking and possess little reasoning skills. I can't discuss Christianity in Ancient Greece and I can't discuss the philosophies of science from more than 300 years ago. I am beginning to think you don't even know what science is, and thus I have been wasting my time.

-pedophilia was openly practiced (and encouraged) in ancient Greece among a large portion of the population, how many pedophiles do you know now? See; social movements, norms, customs, taboo, social control. And comparing private sexual impulses to the public scrutiny of society is a horrible analogy, one is meant to be kept secret, one is not.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

THAT IS PRIMITIVE SCIENCE. It's the discovery of friction causing heat. It's not just 2 different sticks whilst were at it. There is a technique and specific woods and grasses that lead to it. What about the use of properties of different materials. In weapons, for example the elastic properties of strings, used in instruments and cross bows etc. I don't think I know anyone that would argue science has only exsisted for 300 years. I'm beginning to think that YOU don't know what science is. 

WOW I forgot the most obvious example- THE EGYPTIANS. Man shut up, I can't believe I'm arguing to some one, that science is older than 300 years. LMAO You've seriously made my morning.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

This thread acomplished nothing, but the best part was the O.P getting fed up with his own thread...:thumbsdown:

CC420


----------

