Quote by punker0017
Quote by levitanwell, depends on how you define being human... the way
the writer says;
it seems that humanity is something to do with civilisation and
society.... if that is so: then a man NOT from civilisation is not
human..if he is not so, then must he be given human rights? i think
that the writer's passage is inadequate well, i believe that man is
born with morals. if he was not, why did civilisation (of men) impose
morals upon themselves if being moral was not of human nature?
and i think, yes, a man who disregards his morals is bad, but i do not
believe that he has disregarded his humanity... because, for one thing,
to be human is a thing of the species.. i ithnk
i dont know.. sorry.. im not feeling philosophical at the
moment..keke^-^
I believe this to be inadequate. Morals are not human nature, I think
that they are a product of a reasoning mind. People aren't born with
morals, they are learned through cognition and reasoning. And what do
you mean that a man who disregards his morals is bad? What if a man has
bad morals? What then?
Quote by LastDinosaur
Quote by xsummerxraindid God create man or did man
create God?
Well, man created the belief of God, someone had to.. or noone would
know He existed. It would be impossible for Him to come down and tell
us Himself, so yes.. man did create the idea of God. Whether God exists
or not cannot be argued, cause noone knows, noone can prove or disprove
Him.
I may not be able to disprove his existence, but I can sure as hell
prove that The Bible is bullshit.
Well, bad morals does not exist (that's what I think). There can be just a taught lying over the morals of the
person, that can change them, but "bad morals" has no sense. Morals are the group of stuff that shows the man
what he wants and how to get it. If you want to kill somedoby to be rich and be "happy", you're immoral.
Well, you say that The Bible is bullshit?? Well, in first place, have you read it?? have you looked information about
it?? Or what you know is just the "information" that you receive just like that?? (TV, radio,
journal.............)?
Well, in this case, I will just say something about The Bible. If you don't know The Bible's purpose, the main
objective of his writing, everything you say about it could be wrong...4 example, if you think that ice cream is made
for taking a bath, when you say that it is ineffective, it's because you don't know that ice cream is actually
made for eating...
The Bible's main objective, according to deep studies, is God's desire to have a personal relationship with
each one of us. There's no willing 4 religion or something like that.
There are people that think they know, but they don't know. You can be one of those, I can be one of those too.
I'm just proposing more information, so that this can become more rich.
Quote by LastDinosaur
Quote by xsummerxrain
Quote by punker0017
I may not be able to disprove his existence, but I can sure as hell
prove that The Bible is bullshit.
Let's hear it.
Im sure a book written 2000 years ago will have some errors.. specially
the ones that relate to scientific fact.. the bible still says that god
created man, (if you believe that, i mean no offence) but by scientific
reasoning, thats imposible... the way and time period god created the
world makes no sence, but its still possible that he created it.. just
not the way the bible says, cause you have to take in consideration
things like evolution and the big bang.
Clac!! Wrong information!!! (don't worry, is not your fault). The Bible was not written 2000 years ago. It finished
being written 2000 years ago. It was written during a 4000 years period. So, the fact that 41 authors wrote it and most
of them didn't know eachother (except for the apostols and some patriarchs) and that there is no contratiction on
this text, is not the work of chance. What i'm saying is that as we cannot say it is the truth, we cannot say it
isn't.
LastDinosaur, Science prove God's existence. As you learn that the biological and bio-quimical structures are more
complicated than astronomic ones, you start to think that the number 10 cannot become 256,766... just like that. When
you analyse the Biblical texts having a good amount of scientific information and no prejudices, you see that a big part
of science is included in the Bible. Job already knew that Earth was a sphere, and he said that inside of it, there was
"fire". Fire makes us think about high temperature, and not combustion, because he didn't know that fire
was combustion, just something hot. So, you must know that many expressions of the Bible have a symbological meaning.
And to proper analyse them, you must have a lot of knowledge in history. And because there's a lot of us that
don't have that amount of information and knowledge, churches were made, to help us in or way to understand those
texts. Because in a church, there is not just you, there are 1000 people, 4 example. 2 minds think better than 1...
And, there's another aspect of this book. Spiritual matters can just be understood spiritually, if your spirit is
asleep, there are a lot of things you won't understand: like how can a lovefull God exist if there is al ot of
suffering in this world. Well, God is a spirit, so his love is spiritual (Timoteo 1:7 (in spanish, don't know how
to say it in english)) then it can't be determined by circumstances or physiological needs.....
Don't say "yes" and don't say "no". "does God exist?" is not a yes/no question.
Last Dinosaur, big bang and evolution are not contradictory with the Bible. The Bible talks about evolution. Don't
think it's contradictory because people say so. And there's something that makes me i don't know... Big
bang is just a theory. So, because it is a theory, it's not the absolute truth, it's a possibility with VERY
high chances, because of galaxy movements and other stuff. But there is a problematic over there: gravitation changes
matter direction. so, please don't say "yes" and don't say "no" if there is not a yes/no
question: just say "I think that...." and, if possible, justify your arguments. I'm trying to do
it.
xsummerxrain, in philosophical terms, "human" is not homo sapiens sapiens, because homo sapiens sapiens is
just a mammal, and we are not just mammals because we have reason and morals. (ask Kant, or Sartre...). In scientifical
terms, a human is an homo sapiens sapiens, yes. But in philosophical terms, Human is something else. Humanity defines
not the group of us, but our quality. We are the only species that can accumulate his progress. Virtue is something else
we have to threat. Resuming: read Freud. :D
That's what I think. May the Force be with you.
