Uh-Oh, here comes a God vs Science thread
Dizzy Egg

Sooo...I've been spending some time watching lectures and reading articles regarding the Universe, and more specifically the death of stars. What do people who believe God created the heaven and the Earth think about this stuff; I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just (maybe dangerously) curious about how people feel about these discoveries. i.e, we are made from stardust...the Universe is billions of billions of years old...does it shake yer faith?

23yrold3yrold
Dizzy Egg said:

we are made from stardust...the Universe is billions of billions of years old...does it shake yer faith?

Is there a reason why it would?

Religion is not science and vice versa. They aren't related. They each have basically zero effect on the other.

Also, in before the lock. :P

van_houtte

In before the lock

Arthur Kalliokoski

Religion is not science and vice versa. They aren't related. They each have basically zero effect on the other.

Religion is about patting your inner child on the head and telling him it'll be OK. Science is about finding out what's what.

23yrold3yrold

Religion is about patting your inner child on the head and telling him it'll be OK. Science is about finding out what's what.

We're aware of your belief system, yes. ::) I think you're describing positive affirmations more than anything. ;D

Still kinda curious why Dizzy believes God is at odds with science. Is there a single major religion that the information in the first post contradicts? Honest question. Anyone know?

Vanneto
Dizzy Egg said:

we are made from stardust...the Universe is billions of billions of years old...does it shake yer faith?

Didn't read the recent threads did ya? :P

AMCerasoli

I'm going to give you and answer but I don't know how are you going to take it, but you wanted so... God... Doesn't... Exist... Tan.. tan.. tan.............. :o

Onewing

God... Doesn't... Exist...

Phew, thanks! I was about to make a HUGE mistake.... ::)

cgman24

God... Doesn't... Exist...

Would you bet on it?

Dizzy Egg

I haven't explained myself very well...I mean more, if you believe that God created us, what do you think when its proved that, well, he didn't...or do you start to bend things, like "oh well no what we mean is God created the stars in order for them to create you, so, he did create you, indirectly"

Arthur Kalliokoski

I think you're describing positive affirmations more than anything.

Euphemism ("positive affirmation") is bullshit. Same thing as reassuring your primitive emotional side.

cgman24 said:

Would you bet on it?

Yep. I also believe the money I've saved on "Make Money Fast" spams along with the relief of not worrying about it outweighs the possibility that I'm missing something.

Neil Black
Dizzy Egg said:

I haven't explained myself very well...I mean more, if you believe that God created us, what do you think when its proved that, well, he didn't...or do you start to bend things, like "oh well no what we mean is God created the stars in order for them to create you, so, he did create you, indirectly"

I don't see that as bending things. The Bible clearly states that God made us from the dust of the ground. The fact that the dust of the ground was made from the dust of exploded stars isn't a contradiction.

J-Gamer

So you're saying that God influenced the evolutionary path of the human being?
That would be an interesting interpretation :P

Neil Black
J-Gamer said:

So you're saying that God influenced the evolutionary path of the human being?

No... I haven't said anything about evolution. Some do make that claim, though.

Arthur Kalliokoski
J-Gamer said:

So you're saying that God influenced the evolutionary path of the human being?

What's wrong with that idea? We influence the evolutionary paths of sporting dogs, thoroughbred racehorses, and people with glasses all the time, and we're not even omnipotent.

J-Gamer

See my next sentence... I find that an interesting idea.

[EDIT]
@Neil: Then how do you explain we came into existence trough the work of God if you know that we evolved from the apes?

SiegeLord
cgman24 said:

Would you bet on it?

I'd bet more on it than I would on Earth poofing out of existence (#1 on this list).

Neil Black
J-Gamer said:

Then how do you explain we came into existence trough the work of God if you know that we evolved from the apes?

Because I don't know that we evolved from apes. I'm one of those wacky creationists. ;)

Over the last year or so I've been coming around to the conclusion that evolution and religion are not necessarily at odds. I still don't believe in it, but I have more respect for the religious people who do.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Because I don't know that we evolved from apes. I'm one of those wacky creationists.

A couple days ago, I had a cramp in my foot. As I contemplated this foot I'm blessed with (it's one of those with a big gap between the big toe and the other toes) I considered why such a gap would happen unless it's a throwback to an opposable big toe for climbing trees.

Neil Black

I know, it's fascinating.

23yrold3yrold
J-Gamer said:

So you're saying that God influenced the evolutionary path of the human being?
That would be an interesting interpretation :P

That's not even a new interpretation. The Bible is almost completely silent on history before a few thousand years ago so I don't understand why people think what happened a billion years prior contradicts it. It is quite literally not even a valid topic of discussion.

Arthur Kalliokoski

The Bible is almost completely silent on history before a few thousand years ago

What happened to Usher's calculation that creation is ~6000 years old? If you say a "day" is an indeterminate amount of time, well, then you're redefining words to mean whatever you want, and they're worthless.

Elias

I thought the bible starts with the creation of the universe on page 1? So it would go back about 14 billion years.

23yrold3yrold

What happened to Usher's calculation that creation is ~6000 years old?

I don't know; what happened to it? You must have edited it out of your post so I couldn't see it ...

Elias said:

I thought the bible starts with the creation of the universe on page 1?

It doesn't. That or it's an extremely succinct Genesis 1:1, because the Earth is sitting there fully formed in Genesis 1:2 ...

Elias

Well, at least in my version it does :P [1]

23yrold3yrold

Does it include a timeline?

Arthur Kalliokoski

video

StevenVI

Does it include a timeline?

That's an interesting interpretation. I do see how you get to the existence age (edited, used the wrong word) of the universe being undefined from it. However, doesn't it still put the dawn of man at ~6000 years (if what I've heard other people say is correct)?

Sorry if you've answered this hundreds of times in the past already.

J-Gamer

@Arthur: Hilarious :D :D

23yrold3yrold
StevenVI said:

However, doesn't it still put the dawn of man at ~6000 years (if what I've heard other people say is correct)?

Some people say that. Some say otherwise. Again, I wonder what people who think there's a contradiction believe it's saying and why.

And that's the second time someone has called something taken as read an "interesting interpretation." No it isn't! ;D

NiteHackr

Looks at hook dangling in front of him and decides not to bite. ;D

Arthur Kalliokoski
Neil Roy said:

Looks at hook dangling in front of him and decides not to bite. ;D

But the hook is harmless, it's only spaghetti...

StevenVI

And that's the second time someone has called something taken as read an "interesting interpretation." No it isn't! ;D

You could just as easily interpret the passage as saying that the universe was created, then a week later humans were, too. In fact, I would say it is easier to interpret it that way.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it right. :P

23yrold3yrold
StevenVI said:

You could just as easily interpret the passage as saying that the universe was created, then a week later humans were, too. In fact, I would say it is easier to interpret it that way.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it right. :P

I don't believe either. I have very little belief in anything those passages say, because they're very vague. What I want to know is the beliefs of those who say there's a contradiction, as someone who can't invest enough faith into any given interpretation to say one way or the other. Especially since those people seem to belief that their own interpretations somehow impact the beliefs of others. :)

Tobias Dammers

Because I don't know that we evolved from apes.

We did not. Saying we evolved from apes is about as accurate as saying we evolved from amoebae.

The farthest point to which creationism can go alongside science is the view that God created the laws of nature that allow for evolution to happen, and that in all His wisdom and glory, He foresaw that evolution would at some point produce homo sapiens sapiens.

Personally, however, I think haemorrhoids, cancer, the eye's blind spot, our inability to grasp spatial problems beyond 3 dimensions (and many in 3 dimensions), the spleen, and a few dozen more design flaws in the human body, are pretty sure signs that if we were intelligently and willfully designed by a creator, then he did a rather sloppy job.

Still kinda curious why Dizzy believes God is at odds with science. Is there a single major religion that the information in the first post contradicts? Honest question. Anyone know?

Sure. Some orthodox Christians and Jews believe the Earth is some 7000 years old. Many Christians believe dinosaurs and man were both created at the same time. The Bible says (or at least, a lot of self-proclaimed Bible experts say) that homosexuality is unnatural. Unfortunately, my cultural background doesn't give me enough ammunition to list similar clashes for other religious movements, but I'm pretty certain one could easily come up with Muslim, Hindu, or even Buddhist (although Buddhism is not technically a religion) teachings that bear similar flaws. Of course, a Christian belief that does not interpret the Bible literally, and instead tries to dig to the core of what it tries to say, does not have this problem. In fact, it is even possible to be a Christian (as in, a follower of Jesus) while rejecting the Bible as a whole (one would of course still use it as an important source of information about Jesus, but it doesn't have to be the ultimate authority about everything).

cgman24 said:

Would you bet on it?

Oh yes.

Pascal had it wrong, because he approached the whole thing from a context where belief in God was the norm. I'm coming from the other side, and from where I stand, the story goes more like, let's question everything. Then if someone proposes an arbitrary deity, why would I bet my money on it? What if I have two deities to choose from? What if I have 15? The whole God thing only makes sense if it offers a better explanation for my unanswered questions than my current set of beliefs, which it doesn't. Pascal himself doesn't even provide a useful definition of his god - he presents God as "unknowable", which, by nature, is also undefinable, and thus a useless concept in any rational reasoning. Pascal got away with it because again, in his time, belief in God was the norm and everybody pretty much took the God concept for granted. (On a side note, I think defining God as "the undefinable" is pretty much spot-on, as it's a nice parallel with the core of Gödel's theorem, a statement that says of itself to be false - if God is defined as the undefinable, is He defined or not?)

Another problem is that his premise (everything to win, nothing to lose) is ultimately wrong. Belief in God does not provide "free happiness"; instead, it can be the source of extreme misery. By wagering against God, you win the freedom to choose your own meaning, you win the right to not be bound by religious rules, you win ultimate responsibility for your own actions. By wagering for God, you win the comfort of an intelligent being looking after you, (possibly) the comfort of an afterlife, a ready-made set of rules to structure your life, and answers to your unanswerable questions.

And then the third flaw; you are not obliged to wager. Agnosticism is perfectly valid, nothing wrong with admitting you're not sure either way.

23yrold3yrold

Sure. Some orthodox Christians and Jews believe the Earth is some 7000 years old. Many Christians believe dinosaurs and man were both created at the same time. The Bible says (or at least, a lot of self-proclaimed Bible experts say) that homosexuality is unnatural.

We're going to have a repeat of last thread, aren't we? I'm not asking what people believe, I'm asking what the religion says. And if you're going to say people's opinions represent the religion itself, stupid as that is, then provide percentages of Christians who think that (and if those percentages are in the minority, you suddenly become flat wrong). I'm pretty sure if nothing else, the Catholic church endorses most if not all of your points from the science side ...

Tobias Dammers

OK, let me rephrase it then: Some orthodox Christian and Jewish religious leaders believe and teach that the Earth is some 7000 years old. Similar for the other arguments.

And I have never heard the Pope admit that homosexuality is a perfectly natural thing, even though all scientific evidence leads to that conclusion.

I also explicitly explained that the Christian religion as a whole does not contradict science, as it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and fully subscribe to scientific methods. There is no such thing as one uniform Christian religion though, and some variations clearly contradict scientific facts in their teachings, while others don't.

Matthew Leverton

If something is natural, does that make it right?

If something is unnatural, does that make it wrong?

Enlighten the Supreme Loser.

bamccaig
gnolam
Quote:

Pascal's Wager

{"name":"Pascal03.JPG","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/3\/137fbe90b17f3882bcb3a6eb1af97def.jpg","w":1201,"h":766,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/3\/137fbe90b17f3882bcb3a6eb1af97def"}Pascal03.JPG
(Yes, I'm aware of the spelling errors, and no, I don't know who created it)

Thomas Fjellstrom

We're going to have a repeat of last thread, aren't we? I'm not asking what people believe, I'm asking what the religion says

I didn't want to get into this. What does religion say? Do you actually know? Or are you just interpreting what you've been taught and what you read? Does anyone actually know? I find it hard to believe that anyone actually can know without any doubt what happened over 2000 years ago based on some highly suspect re-translations of documents written much after the fact. Some written by crazy ass cults no less.

23yrold3yrold

I didn't want to get into this. What does religion say? Do you actually know? Or are you just interpreting what you've been taught and what you read? Does anyone actually know? I find it hard to believe that anyone actually can know without any doubt what happened over 2000 years ago based on some highly suspect re-translations of documents written much after the fact. Some written by crazy ass cults no less.

Without even bothering to refute some of that ... you speak like you have a better source. What are your beliefs on the topic based on? :)

Thomas Fjellstrom

ou speak like you have a better source.

We all have the same sources. So I really can't say mine is any better. Some people just like to think their way is better.

I like how you dodged my question though. Seriously, do you KNOW? I don't think you can do any better than interpreting what exists in your own frame of reference. And trying to claim anything more than that is pure hog-wash.

23yrold3yrold

I like how you dodged my question though. Seriously, do you KNOW?

Sorry if you thought I dodged; I felt it was a question answered. I really have no dog in this fight. And if we don't know what the religion says, then on what grounds is there a contradiction? Science contradicts ... nil? Argument defeated I guess, good job.

Thomas Fjellstrom

I wasn't really including myself in the current debate, just a part of it that I thought you were being silly on. You seem to claim that you (can) know what religion says with out a doubt, with no interpretation. I refute that.

btw, you dodged again.

23yrold3yrold

You seem to claim that you (can) know what religion says with out a doubt, with no interpretation. I refute that.

If it's literally wide open to interpretation then there's still no dialog possible. The text says what it says. If you can't trust it then you can't analyze it. Apply that thinking to science; how could you study something if the results randomly changed every time you performed the experiment?

Personally I think the integrity of the texts kicks the ass of every other historical text out there (history, not science; if you going to compare anything compare that) but if you know better then cool story, bro. Gotta agree to disagree I guess.

Matthew Leverton

Many people believe in a literal creation. What will those people do if science proves something else? That is the question.

You people are funny that you make it into some theoretical debate.

But, to Mr. Egg, you can look to the past for your answers. Things devout religious people have believed have been discredited by science many times. They continue to believe because they change their opinions of what their holy texts say and mean.

Regarding creation itself, well, science will never be able to "prove" anything about it (unlike, say, explaining what lightning is), so there will always be people who happily believe in a literal creation.

Glad I could clear that up for you. >:(

Derezo

Religion is not science and vice versa. They aren't related.

Completely false. Religion is the original science. If there was no religion, there would be no science, because using empirical evidence to prove things would just be the norm. Many religions still maintain a parallel with science, but science "broke free" of religion because people found out they were lying.

Not the ones that Abraham made, of course. Many followers of those religions even bicker about details like evolution.
[edit: That's worded bad. I meant Abraham's religions don't follow science]

Thomas Fjellstrom

The text says what it says.

So basically we should take the bible literally, and follow it word for word? I think I'll need to get some stones.

Quote:

Apply that thinking to science;

Its a good thing religion is not science, and science is not religion. Of course that's not to say there isn't some faith involved in science. But clearly the two are very unrelated in this day and age. Mainly, I think because the extreme zealots on both sides like to keep it that way.

Quote:

Personally I think the integrity of the texts kicks the ass of every other historical text out there

Based on your faith and your own frame of reference I suppose? Unless you know. But then that's not what religion is about, or so I think you've said before.

23yrold3yrold

So basically we should take the bible literally, and follow it word for word?

Who's dodging now? The thread is about religious and scientific contradictions. "Following" the Bible isn't on the menu; I could be making these comments as an atheist quite comfortably. What exactly did you think we were talking about, specifically? I sense another of our misunderstandings here ...

Quote:

Based on your faith and your own frame of reference I suppose?

From what I've read of historical and scholarly studies. Again, this is only on the integrity of the texts. Nothing more.

gnolam

Could you define "integrity of the texts"? :)

23yrold3yrold

How much the core contents have changed over the years. Major translation errors in doctrine. What the religion says, to use Thomas' words (since that's the context). And if you link the infidel's contradictions page, re-read it.

piccolo

23yrold3yrold
Rules

23yrold3yrold

Oh no, I'm being endorsed by piccolo. :o

/terrified

Anyway, I just got actual work to do, I'll be back if anyone can stay on topic for five posts.

Dizzy Egg

Thanks for all the replies, I guess ultimately it's impossible to answer. From my point of view I have never believed in any kind of God, don't ask me why I just haven't ever thought it to be possible. That's interesting (maybe) because when I heard that we are all stardust I got completely freaked and have spent a lot of my time (when I would usually be playing Battlefield 2) trying to understand how. It's never been a problem for me; for 31 years I've never even questioned how and why I'm here, and now I can't the idea out of my head. I keep looking at people going about their daily lives and feel like screaming out "OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL STARDUST!!!", it's really getting at me, and my inability to understand the science completely is actually starting to affect my daily routines.

What's interesting is that not for one second have I believed in Creationism or God (I'm not having a go at faith here, I'm all for it if it helps you stay positive), but I'm prepared to believe a different theory, so much so that I would actually dedicate my life to understanding it if it was an option to me.

I'm going to play some Battlefield now, and try not too think about it too much.

_Kronk_

I'm not going to wade into this too deeply, and hopefully it's too late to anyway, but just keep searching for the truth, because I believe that if you sincerely search for it, you will find it. Search everyone's opinion; don't just look to science for answers; hear the other side of the story by going to church or reading the Bible. I personally don't see how anyone can believe that we were somehow spawned from dirt, apart from the hand of a Creator who had the power to create life, but the truth will stand for itself. I'll pray that you find the truth :)

bamccaig
_Kronk_ said:

I personally don't see how anyone can believe that we were somehow spawned from dirt,...

I don't think anyone believes that to be true. ::)

The process of evolution that leads to us began a very long time ago and involves an unthinkable number of iterations. That's why it's ridiculous to think of dirt or an ape suddenly spawning a human. That isn't at all what scientists theorize. :)

Perhaps that should make it clear to you that you've not given science the opportunity to explain, and are therefore opposing it simply because it refutes your beliefs.

See if you can grasp this (it's only 2 minutes of your time!):

video

Onewing
Dizzy Egg said:

"OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL STARDUST!!!"

Oh, I see what you did there. ;D

I agree with Kronk, you have to choose what you believe, but you don't have to etch that in stone. Review religions, talk with scientists and meditate on it. It's your choice what you believe and you won't be graded until death, and your grade could be between an F and an A, the color purple or simply null.

By the way, ever heard the song Dust In the Wind by Kansas?

Vanneto
_Kronk_ said:

I personally don't see how anyone can believe that we were somehow spawned from dirt

You find it hard to believe, some find it incredibly easy. But thats just how it works with these kind of things and why its pointless to talk about it.

On a side note: piccolo, still waiting for that infinite energy device. 8-)

gnolam

Since we all decay, I think a secular equilibrium is something to strive for.

blargmob

Religion is not science and vice versa. They aren't related.

That was a very poorly thought out and constructed statement. It is entirely and wholly wrong in every manner.

<edit>
I have some things to say about that!
</edit>

Religion was created, in part, to provide answers to the unanswerable; things such as the creation of life, etc. And now, science has come along to shed light on these things, providing convincing evidence for the Big Bang and ultimately proving human evolution as undeniable fact.

As Derezo said:

Derezo said:

Religion is the original science.

23yrold3yrold

That's an argument I've heard before that sounds more like wishful thinking than fact. Science doesn't claim to explain things in religion texts; it claims they didn't happen at all because there's no scientific explanation. Science has "shed light on these things"? Okay, I'll bite; on what things specifically?

blargmob

That's an argument I've heard before that sounds more like wishful thinking than fact.

Nope. It's fact. It obviously goes much deeper, but I am not about to give you a full course on Anthropology :P

Quote:

on what things specifically?

providing convincing evidence for the Big Bang and ultimately proving human evolution as undeniable fact.

23yrold3yrold

providing convincing evidence for the Big Bang and ultimately proving human evolution as undeniable fact.

These have what to do with religion in general?

blargmob

That's an argument I've heard before that sounds more like wishful thinking than fact.

Nope. It's fact. It obviously goes much deeper, but I am not about to give you a full course on Anthropology :P

Quote:

on what things specifically?

providing convincing evidence for the Big Bang and ultimately proving human evolution as undeniable fact.

Tobias Dammers

it claims they didn't happen at all because there's no scientific explanation.

It claims they didn't happen at all because there is no evidence that they did. If person A claims something exists, and B claims it doesn't, then A needs to provide the evidence, not B. Anything else would be ridiculous, because it would mean that I could make up all sorts of things and then demand you provide evidence they don't exist.
The burden of proof is on those who claim it did happen.

23yrold3yrold

It claims they didn't happen at all because there is no evidence that they did.

Cool; we're in agreement.

Damn your edits!

Mine? I'm not editing ...

blargmob

I'm not editing ...

Doh! a.cc choked up for a couple minutes and I got confoosed.

_Kronk_
bamccaig said:

I don't think anyone believes that to be true.

The process of evolution that leads to us began a very long time ago and involves an unthinkable number of iterations. That's why it's ridiculous to think of dirt or an ape suddenly spawning a human. That isn't at all what scientists theorize.

So that process indirectly spawned man? Let me clarify: I don't think life just spontaneously "happened" in any form. Chains of protein don't typically just form in puddles of organic matter; and organic matter can't just appear from nothing. A star exploding billions of years in the past explains nothing: the laws of physics and reality applied then just as much as they do now. That star had to come from somewhere.

Evolution is an unproven theory created by faulted mankind that tries to explain his existence by means that factor anything but his own understanding out of the equation. And by definition, man's understanding is flawed.

:)

Vanneto said:

You find it hard to believe, some find it incredibly easy. But thats just how it works with these kind of things and why its pointless to talk about it.

But it's not pointless! The way we understand where we came from and where we are going affects the choices we make in our everyday lives. I refuse to live a life of apathy because I know that what I do today affects my life in the future; it's no different when considering matters beyond our own lifetime.

blargmob

These have what to do with religion in general?

Because most religions, and certainly all of the major ones, suggest their own form of creation based on myth and fantasy.

EDIT:

_Kronk_ said:

Evolution is an unproven theory

Are you kidding me? Do your fucking research, kid. It is a fact, and denying it would be like denying the existence of gravity.

_Kronk_

Are you kidding me? Do your research, kid. It is a fact, and denying it would be like denying the existence of gravity.

Evolution is no more of a science than the spontaneous generation theories of the Greeks. It's a repackaged version that appeals to the tastes of the modern scientific community. I could argue with your statement further, but really; it is the Theory of Evolution, not the Law.

Let me be clear: I don't mean to be disrespectful in any way.

23yrold3yrold

Because most religions, and certainly all of the major ones, suggest their own form of creation based on myth and fantasy.

Since you feel so strongly about that, let's get back to the original post: what part of the Bible's (very broad) explanation of creation contradicts science?

Quote:

Are you kidding me? Do your fucking research, kid.

Amusingly, I used to believe in evolution until someone challenged me to research it. More amusingly, this was an atheist who had taken a course on it in university and couldn't believe what he was hearing as "fact". ;D Just saying "do your research" and leaving it at that can be kind of dangerous ... I had to admit defeat. And yes, I read most of talkorigins.org; don't bother linking it.

bamccaig

IIRC, the word science derives from the latin word for knowledge. That's all science really is. It's knowledge. Prior to modern day science, the world was full of unexplainable things, and naturally people did their best to explain them. Unfortunately, since they hadn't acquired the knowledge that we have today, their explanations were usually very wrong and ridiculous. Of course, to people of the time, these explanations would have been very believable. So, yes, I think you could say that religion is a sort of precursor to science. It was a way to explain things. It was more than that also. It was a way to control the population. It was a way to exploit the population.

I saw a special on Discovery or something years ago detailing contraptions that "the church" had secretly contracted inventors to build to effectively trick people (i.e., you could compare these contraptions to modern day magic tricks and illusions). The people were completely fooled and believed it was magic AKA God. In reality, it was simple science (physics, mostly) creating the illusions. Of course, the churches were kept dark and "behind the curtain" was considered off limits for common folk, so you can see how easily people would be fooled.

In any case, modern day religion is something of a different beast. It is still used to some extent to explain things, but it's no longer (edit: if it ever was...) used for the betterment of humanity and is instead used to exploit it. They had a good run, but it's time to give the people their money back. >:(

blargmob
_Kronk_ said:

Evolution is no more of a science than the spontaneous generation theories of the Greeks.

Hahahaha. You have degraded so far that I am actually laughing in my chair at your (maybe unintentional) ignorance and lack of knowledge of what it is you are actually talking about.

Whatever ;D ;D ;D

_Kronk_
bamccaig said:

IIRC, the word science derives from the latin word for knowledge. That's all science really is. It's knowledge. Prior to modern day science, the world was full of unexplainable things, and naturally people did their best to explain them. Unfortunately, since they hadn't acquired the knowledge that we have today, their explanations were usually very wrong and ridiculous. Of course, to people of the time, these explanations would have been very believable.

And the cycle repeats itself :)

Quote:

In any case, modern day religion is something of a different beast. It is still used to some extent to explain things, but it's no longer used for the betterment of humanity and is instead used to exploit it. They had a good run, but it's time to give the people their money back.

That's not my kind of religion :)

blargmob

what part of the Bible's (very broad) explanation of creation contradicts science?

How the mysterious Man in the Sky had Enough Mana to Create Everything Using his Wizard Powers

23yrold3yrold
Quote:

How the mysterious Man in the Sky created everything using his wizard powers

"The narrative of the book traces the origin of God's chosen people, Israel, from the Creation to their descent into Egypt; the succeeding books of the Torah follow their subsequent liberation from Egypt through the power of God."

MMMMMMMMM-kay. Wikipedia got it right, so read before you link. I see maybe two sentences in that article related to "creation" in passing (and rightly so).

Vanneto

30.3.2011 00:35 - 75 replies.
30.3.2011 00:37 - 76 replies.

Now we wait. ;D

_Kronk_
Vanneto said:

30.3.2011 00:35 - 75 replies.
30.3.2011 00:37 - 76 replies.

Now we wait.

These things blow up quick don't they ;D

blargmob

{"name":"603807","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/7\/779018b458adddb755831429afafff05.jpg","w":380,"h":400,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/7\/779018b458adddb755831429afafff05"}603807

Evert
_Kronk_ said:

Evolution is an unproven theory

Look up the scientific definitions of both "evolution" and "theory".
Those words don't mean what you seem to think they mean.

_Kronk_ said:

it is the Theory of Evolution, not the Law.

Yes, it is also the theory of gravity. Again, look up what "theory" actually means in a scientific context.

bamccaig
_Kronk_ said:

Evolution is an unproven theory created by faulted mankind that tries to explain his existence by means that factor anything but his own understanding out of the equation.

I'm afraid you fail to understand the meaning of the word "theory" as used in scientific studies. Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

SiegeLord

There is a certain standard that someone has to meet to be even worth arguing with...

Evolution is a well supported theory and is the the cornerstone theory of ALL of modern biological sciences. Many scientists might argue about the particulars of it, but no scientist will dispute the central tenets. To doubt it, is to declare your ignorance of the modern science and its methods.

_Kronk_

Alright: my understanding of the use of the word "theory" in science is flawed. I apologize. That still doesn't subtract from the fact that man's understanding of the universe is constantly changing, and also that the big bang theory has no credence.

@ Jesse Lenney: funny ;D

edit:

SiegeLord said:

There is a certain standard that someone has to meet to be even worth arguing with...

Sorry I haven't been spoonfed evolutionary theory my whole life :-X

Vanneto

You know what? I haven't either. I just prefer to believe I came from dirt.

Thomas Fjellstrom

More like you came from a pool of goo. Or a massive cloud of hydrogen gas.

SiegeLord
_Kronk_ said:

That still doesn't subtract from the fact that man's understanding of the universe is constantly changing, and also that the big bang theory has no credence.

Yes, we create new theories to best explain new evidence. Evolution has been very good at explaining evidence so far, which suggests that it reflects the way the world really is.

Quote:

Sorry I haven't been spoonfed evolutionary theory my whole life :-X

I'm a scientist... I can feed myself.

_Kronk_
Vanneto said:

You know what? I haven't either. I just prefer to believe I came from dirt.

More like you came from a pool of goo. Or a massive cloud of hydrogen gas.

They both sound equally silly until you consider the possibilty that God created your ancestor's earthly body out of the dirt that He had just recently created :) He is God; just a touch provides life if He wills it. That makes more sense than believing that matter can (a) create itself and (b) given time, can form logical structures that perform incredibly complex functions that we don't even fully understand yet.

edit:
Plus, if God doesn't exist, what is there to live for?

Thomas Fjellstrom
_Kronk_ said:

That makes more sense than believing that matter can (a) create itself

It can't though. Not according to science at least. Creating something from nothing is against the laws of physics.

Quote:

Plus, if God doesn't exist, what is there to live for?

Each person lives for their own reasons. I certainly don't need the belief in some all powerful being to keep me going.

SiegeLord
_Kronk_ said:

Plus, if God doesn't exist, what is there to live for?

Arguing with strangers on the Internet.

LennyLen
_Kronk_ said:

Plus, if God doesn't exist, what is there to live for?

Sex, Drugs and Rock n Roll.

type568

@Jesse Lenney

Let's assume there is an invisible pink unicorn.

Since the unicorn is pink, we know he reflects photos which frequencies represent the pink color, however we know the unicorn is invisible and hence he cannot reflect light.

This way we have arrived to a contradiction, and hence our assumption about existence of invisible pink unicorn was false.

bamccaig
_Kronk_ said:

He is God; just a touch provides life if He wills it.

Which verse says that? ??? What would it even mean for God to "touch" ... whatever it is he'd provide life to?

_Kronk_ said:

That makes more sense than believing that matter can (a) create itself and (b) given time, can form logical structures that perform incredibly complex functions that we don't even fully understand yet.

I don't think anybody believes that matter creates itself. That sounds paradoxical to me. IIRC, the Big Bang theory (which I assume you are referring to) theorizes that all of the energy of the universe was at one time compressed to a single point (the center of the universe as we know it), and it was very hot, and it rapidly expanded and cooled; forming matter and anti-matter (IIRC, matter is considered compressed energy; I think anti-matter therefore is too). The matter later formed stars, the stars formed bigger elements of matter, and the rest is history. There are still unanswered questions and the whole thing is by no means understood fully, but it based on scientific evidence it is the best explanation we have come up with so far.

As for the formation of complex life forms from very simple ones (I think the simplest definition of an organic compound is containing carbon, with the exceptions CO and CO2, IIRC), that is already explainable... :-/

_Kronk_ said:

Plus, if God doesn't exist, what is there to live for?

What is there to live for if God does exist? The good part begins after death according to the Bible... :-X

Live for the things that make you happy. Programming makes me happy. Music makes me happy. Comedy, drama, etc. Other people make me happy (sometimes). :) People that you love, for example. I think that's reason enough.

Also, it's just instinctual to live, I think (for most life forms).

Vanneto
_Kronk_ said:

Plus, if God doesn't exist, what is there to live for?

Live to be alive?

Quote:

They both sound equally silly until you consider the possibilty that God created your ancestor's earthly body out of the dirt that He had just recently created :) He is God; just a touch provides life if He wills it. That makes more sense than believing that matter can (a) create itself and (b) given time, can form logical structures that perform incredibly complex functions that we don't even fully understand yet.

Not to me. God is the ultimate silly for me. But its just a matter of opinions.

Arthur Kalliokoski
bamccaig said:

That's all science really is. It's knowledge.

I disagree. Science is science, knowledge is knowledge. A scientist says "I did such and so, then this happened. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. I also happen to think that things work in such and such a way to explain it".

_Kronk_ said:

That still doesn't subtract from the fact that man's understanding of the universe is constantly changing, and also that the big bang theory has no credence.

Yes, the knowledge we claim to have that originated from science is constantly changing, but it rarely contradicts itself. It's rather a refinement of what we know, modifying particular points to get ever closer to the truth. For example, the theory of special relativity didn't throw classical physics entirely out the window, but adjusted it a bit to be more logical given that things can't move faster than light.

LennyLen said:

Sex, Drugs and Rock n Roll.

There's also programming to enjoy ;D.

type568
bamccaig said:

and it was very hot

Heat is define by movements of molecules.. There was one dot, less than single molecule.. Hot, eh?

bamccaig
type568 said:

Heat is define by movements of molecules.. There was one dot, less than single molecule.. Hot, eh?

Don't ask me. :P I'm not a scientist and certainly not an expert on the Big Bang theory. I referenced Wikipedia to help me with the explanation and it described it as hot. Perhaps the matter formed on the spot, heated rapidly, and that caused the expansion? Fuck if I know. :P

Science is rarely correct the first time around. You continue to revise it as you learn more. It's always a work in progress. That's the point. Unlike religion, which assumes that the text that passed through the hands of billions of humans over the course of thousands of years is the unquestionable truth, science encourages you to question and challenge it and correct it.

Arthur Kalliokoski
type568 said:

Heat is define by movements of molecules.. There was one dot, less than single molecule.. Hot, eh?

That's how you define temperature in matter now that molecules and matter exist.

_Kronk_

Each person lives for their own reasons. I certainly don't need the belief in some all powerful being to keep me going.

Well, if you just disappear when you die, why not die now? What you live for now is irrelevant. Don't take this the wrong way; I Don't Want You To Kill Yourself, but without something absolute; something that cannot change to live for and see everything out of, everything else is meaningless. The ultimate beauty in life is seeing the hand of the Creator in everything that He lovingly created.

SiegeLord said:

Arguing with strangers on the Internet.

;D

bamccaig said:

Which verse says that? What would it even mean for God to "touch" ... whatever it is he'd provide life to?

I don't think anybody believes that matter creates itself. That sounds paradoxical to me. IIRC, the Big Bang theory (which I assume you are referring to) theorizes that all of the energy of the universe was at one time compressed to a single point (the center of the universe as we know it), and it was very hot, and it rapidly expanded and cooled; forming matter and anti-matter (IIRC, matter is considered compressed energy; I think anti-matter therefore is too). The matter later formed stars, the stars formed bigger elements of matter, and the rest is history. There are still unanswered questions and the whole thing is by no means understood fully, but it based on scientific evidence it is the best explanation we have come up with so far.

As for the formation of complex life forms from very simple ones (I think the simplest definition of an organic compound is containing carbon, with the exceptions CO and CO2, IIRC), that is already explainable...

What is there to live for if God does exist? The good part begins after death according to the Bible...

Well, first: for whatever reason (yes, I don't know. I'll ask God someday ;D) God decided to create an intelligent being that would have communion with Him; we are created to know our Creator and He is the only place to find ultimate contentment; as He is the only thing in the Universe that is absolutely good. But then Adam and Eve messed it up, etc, you know that story.

Second: even if all of the energy in the universe was compressed to a hot little .zip file, even that energy had to come from somewhere. So it still doesn't explain anything :-/

Third: the "good part" comes when we have communion with God and know Him on a personal basis, not only after death. The after death part is just even better becuase we are seperated from the consequences of the Fall, e.g., disease, sin, death, suffering, anything not good.

I'm sorry if this seems overly spiritual or "religious", but if God created it all, then it naturally all goes back to Him ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski

I don't know the details of the big bang either, but I'm not going to refuse to eat meat on certain portions of the earths orbit as a result.

[EDIT]

Forgivness? Dogs can do that.
Karma? Doesn't involve yahweh, but still religion.

Mark Oates

{"name":"325px-Lcb_book.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/9\/79a93377da2b2e2ae2c839f666f0ce94.jpg","w":325,"h":325,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/9\/79a93377da2b2e2ae2c839f666f0ce94"}325px-Lcb_book.jpg

Oh hai! In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded the skys an teh Urfs, but he no eated dem.
Teh urfs no has shayps and has darwk fase, and Ceiling Cat roed invisible bike ovah teh wawters.
At furst, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sez, "I can has lite?" and lite wuz.

Here

gnolam
_Kronk_ said:

Second: even if all of the energy in the universe was compressed to a hot little .zip file, even that energy had to come from somewhere. So it still doesn't explain anything :-/

Alas, assuming a god doesn't solve anything. Now you've just introduced one more problem - explaining how he (she/it/specify as appropriate) came into existence.

bamccaig
_Kronk_ said:

But then Adam and Eve messed it up, etc, you know that story.

Seems rather silly that God would punish the universe for a couple of humans making a mistake... What an asshole. >:(

_Kronk_ said:

Second: even if all of the energy in the universe was compressed to a hot little .zip file, even that energy had to come from somewhere. So it still doesn't explain anything :-/

OK, Over-Exaggeration-Man, calm down. :P It doesn't explain everything, but it certainly explains the formation of the universe as we know it, including our solar system, planet, and with the help of evolution it even explains our existence... All without God. It might not explain where the energy originally came from, but it certainly refutes the whole "God created man from dirt" thing, and pretty much the whole Bible, which refutes your entire belief system. :P So you see, it doesn't have to explain everything. It explains enough. And if you weren't sure, no, we haven't stopped trying to fill in the missing pieces. :P

See also gnolam's post above.

_Kronk_ said:

Third: the "good part" comes when we have communion with God and know Him on a personal basis, not only after death. The after death part is just even better becuase we are seperated from the consequences of the Fall, e.g., disease, sin, death, suffering, anything not good.

What does it even mean to know God on a personal basis? Think about that for a second. What good is that? I picture sitting down having a beer with him, talking, joking, etc. That's stupid. For starters, you presumably have no body any more, so you're what? A floating cloud of consciousness? To me it sounds more like the promise is that you'll finally get to understand the universe. The ironic thing is that instead of learning about it with the scientists and supporters of the scientific method, you instead opt to refuse that knowledge and hope to learn it all after you die. :P Do I have that right?

_Kronk_ said:

I'm sorry if this seems overly spiritual or "religious", but if God created it all, then it naturally all goes back to Him ;)

I'm sorry if I sound overly condescending, but your beliefs (which in the general sense I once held myself) seem completely ridiculous to me. I understand though. When you believe these things it's so easy to believe that you're right (especially with social engineers drilling it into your head in churches, with the tone of their voice, and the words that they say), and so scary to consider being wrong (after all, the people who are wrong "are tortured for all eternity in a fiery prison"; plus most of your peers are probably religious and would exile you for questioning their beliefs). :-X

@Mark Oates: OMFG, that's awesome. ;D

Derezo

I'm still caught on why it's so important to choose whether you believe in a God or believe that there is no God. The definition of such a thing isn't very clear, and the outcome of experience seems more related to your actions than to whatever superficial beliefs you may have formed about the nature of reality. Beliefs are something that change throughout time. 5,000 years ago, nobody believed in what you believe in today. 5,000 years from now the result will be the same. People living 5,000 years from now won't be living in "The Year 7011", either. That's just stupid. In fact, I doubt the people of 2100 will refer to it as such.

Beliefs are a useful tool of thought, but they are impermanent. They allow you to achieve your goals and aspire to new heights, because you believe that it can be done. I believe that I can accomplish X new task I've never done before, based on my ability to have accomplished tasks T, U and V without struggle. I don't know this, but I can confirm my belief through action.

Revelations have occurred all throughout history which have reshaped all previous beliefs, and revelations in your experience can reshape beliefs about what you can or cannot do. Some people believe they can fly, and the revelation that they cannot is sometimes only experienced by everyone else.

Is this an Omnipresent God? Doesn't that mean it is me and I am it? Makes the whole concept a little insignificant, don't you think? Sound like a description of reality in action, but that doesn't require any sort of belief to occur. Is this a physical creature of some sort, like a flying spaghetti monster that is in a fixed position?

I think that holding a belief in the existence of an undefined entity is a poorly constructed idea. If you're struggling in life, believing in a higher power that can pick you up and set you on the right course can be incredible. However, it is you that sets your course, not some Man in the Sky.

I have a number of friends, whose intellect and accomplishments in life I value, that consider the whole God dilemma to be a genetic trait, along with homosexuality, an affinity for mathematics, eye colour, and skin color. In fact, I believe that genetics describe the origins of all life found in nature. However, I'm also sure there's more to it than that. This belief will be revealed to be true or false in my lifetime as the progress of genetic research continues.

Imagination is an incredible tool. Use it wisely.

Vanneto
_Kronk_ said:

Well, if you just disappear when you die, why not die now? What you live for now is irrelevant.

This is what you think. If you disappear when you die, it makes it even more pleasant to be alive. To enjoy life. Life is a party, once you're dead, you leave the party. You have to enjoy the party as much as you can, because once you leave, there ain't no coming back.

But this is just a matter of different views. You need God to give you a reason to live, others don't.

gnolam said:

Alas, assuming a god doesn't solve anything. Now you've just introduced one more problem - explaining how he (she/it/specify as appropriate) came into existence.

In the realms of the gaming universe, this statement would be considered a headshot. A "masterkill" if you will. ;D

Thomas Fjellstrom
_Kronk_ said:

Well, if you just disappear when you die, why not die now?

Because. I don't want to.

Derezo

My biggest trouble at trying to wrap my head around god was trying to get someone to describe God to me. Religion is easy. A set of customs and traditions, rituals and shared beliefs, often filled with anecdotes describing practical philosophies, typically controlled by a central authority.
God, on the other hand.. "You just have to believe!"

NiteHackr

This is what I believe...

I believe you all love to argue. 5 pages in here already?! :)

Thomas Fjellstrom
Neil Roy said:

5 pages in here already?!

Nope. Only two.

Quote:

I believe you all love to argue

That I can't not agree with.

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

I believe you all love to argue. 5 pages in here already?! :)

It's only 2. >:( So far.

type568
bamccaig said:

Unlike religion, which assumes that the text that passed through the hands of billions of humans over the course of thousands of years is the unquestionable truth

No, it's not the case. Religion evolves dramatically, and although the written is "unquestionable truth", interpretations vary accordingly to the situation. The interpretation is also pretty much dependent on the interpretor of course, while the language of science is a lot more strict and not allowing multiple interpretations.

I like the comparison of a bible with a dictionary: you can describe anything using the words in the dictionary, with bible the things aren't as flexible but nevertheless..

That's how you define temperature in matter now that molecules and matter exist.

Okay, but when the stuff didn't exist there was no heat.

Vanneto

Hah, made me laugh Neil! :D

You can change the number of posts on a page in your settings. This thread is only 2 pages for me. 8-)

type568

4 4me

Arthur Kalliokoski
type568 said:

Okay, but when the stuff didn't exist there was no heat.

There wasn't time, either, so what cost "it took forever"?

Thomas Fjellstrom
type568 said:

No, it's not the case. Religion evolves dramatically, and although the written is "unquestionable truth", interpretations vary accordingly to the situation.

No, because according to our resident expert, the bible is the bible and is absolute. And given that, any "interpretation" is incorrect and likely heresy.

Since the bible doesn't change, the religion around it can't either.

type568

There wasn't time, either, so what cost "it took forever"?

I didn't ask the question. But the theory is rather nonsense anyways, it's out there just cos' nothing better is invented. But when I attempt to "get in to the infinity of start of all of it", I feel like I'm lost. I'm having that same feeling when I think about since I first did, while I was like.. "Less than a teen"-years-old.

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

bamccaig
type568 said:

No, it's not the case. Religion evolves dramatically, and although the written is "unquestionable truth", interpretations vary accordingly to the situation.

Certainly. However, the interpretation that is fed to you (by your church leaders, for example), are not to be questioned. Go ahead and question them during a Bible study and see how the room treats you. ;D

In high school I went to a Christian "youth group" because of a girl. It was basically a Bible study followed by a "fun night" with games and activities and such. I questioned everything though. ;D The "leader" happened to be the father of a friend and he didn't care for me much. :P I was trying to be open to the ideas (for the girl, of course), but I just simply couldn't... :-/ It was silly and I couldn't believe that the whole room believed it. :( It was quite fun though to stump the leader in front of the group. ;D You could tell he was making shit up to fill in the holes. :-X

Years later a friend from the group (and my childhood) did manage to free her mind for a while, but eventually pressure from her very religious family pulled her back into the net. :(

blargmob
_Kronk_ said:

even if all of the energy in the universe was compressed to a hot little .zip file, even that energy had to come from somewhere. So it still doesn't explain anything

Your ignorance and complete misunderstanding of the Big Bang doesn't mean it "doesn't explain anything". Stop being so caught up in your shell, and go do some real research to better understand what it is you are talking about instead of trying to disprove and demote something that you truly know nothing about.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Neil Roy said:

What settings do you use to get only 2?

{"name":"VaMqQ.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/b\/9b38e1c4817cdb006240758bcc08f694.png","w":1024,"h":768,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/b\/9b38e1c4817cdb006240758bcc08f694"}VaMqQ.png

23yrold3yrold
bamccaig said:

Certainly. However, the interpretation that is fed to you (by your church leaders, for example, are not to be questioned). Go ahead and question them during a Bible study and see how the room treats you. ;D

Me, in the married men thread said:

If someone wants to know something easily verifiable, they should go verify it and stop asking for opinions. Even my old pastor in Winnipeg told us several times from the pulpit not to believe what he said unless we went and verified it for ourselves.

Dunno where this stigma about not questioning religion comes from in the non-religious community. I guess it's natural to assume there's no way anyone could possibly question what they believe as much as you or they'd naturally just come to the same answer you consider obviously correct, huh? :)

Room treats me just fine, thanks old chap. Sorry your isolated personal experience continues to suck an egg.

No, because according to our resident expert, the bible is the bible and is absolute.

All religion is based on the same historical texts, amirite?

NiteHackr
_Kronk_ said:

even if all of the energy in the universe was compressed to a hot little .zip file

Hey, we should start our own religion... we'll call it C++

In the beginning there was a highly compressed, hot little zip file, and yay it was hotteth and highly compressed. And C said "Let there be a universe" and he unzipped the file... and he saw that it was good.... and he said, let there be solar system class, and it was so, and he saw it was good... and he said, let us divide the class into public and private members, and he did, and it was good...

...I'm going to hell for that by the way. ;D

bamccaig

Dunno where this stigma about not questioning religion comes from in the non-religious community. I guess it's natural to assume there's no way anyone could possibly question what they believe as much as you or they'd naturally just come to the same answer you consider obviously correct, huh? :)

You seem quick to jump to conclusions. I grew up "Christian", went to church every week, had a religious family, religious friends, etc. I'm not an outsider to religion at all. Of course, since every fucking church has their own interpretations and ideas you can easily argue that your church is different from mine, and from the ones I've visited, and from the radio and TV programs I've heard/watched. Sure, yours is completely different from every other Christian experience I've seen. Absolutely. As you were then.

Room treats me just fine, thanks old chap. Sorry your isolated personal experience continues to suck an egg.

What did you question of the room?

Neil Roy said:

...I'm going to hell for that by the way. ;D

;D

type568
bamccaig said:

Certainly. However, the interpretation that is fed to you (by your church leaders, for example), are not to be questioned. Go ahead and question them during a Bible study and see how the room treats you.

I absolutely respect any religion with which I'm at least somewhat familiar, and out of what I understand: their respective philosophies define appropriate behaviour(yes, including Muslims, they're just yet interpreting it wrong. Oh well, Christians weren't much better a while ago). However, what I see in the countries I'm related to(Israel, Russia): The "Rabanut Israel" is greedy selfish shit(with all my respect to the Holy Tannah itself), and the same about Russian church: the conservative nonsense is just irrelevant for todays world. From time to time greed is also being involved making things even worse.

I'm very much "on the surface" of the topic, but it's rather.. "dirty"
I'm fine with religion defining our morality, it handles it. Practically mine is mostly defined by Christianity, yet I see no "higher interpreters" to be of any ability to define morality. They just fail.

23yrold3yrold
bamccaig said:

You seem quick to jump to conclusions. I grew up "Christian", went to church every week, had a religious family, religious friends, etc. I'm not an outsider to religion at all.

Nothing I said implied you were. Your post I was replying to, however, assumed a) people accept the interpretation given without question, b) an interpretation is necessary at all (personally, I didn't go to church for years and just did my own research), c) questions would automatically have a negative effect like they're new or something, etc, etc.

Quote:

So what kinds of things have you questioned of the room?

Dude, I play nothing but Devil's Advocate around here. What kind of questions wouldn't I ask if I did Bible studies? Can you even imagine? ;D Most of my friends read more atheist than theist apologetics anyway ...

William Labbett

The question of whether or God exists isn't an intelligent question unless what is meant by God is clearly defined.

If someone asks me or anyone if I or they believe in God, they are assuming I or they know what the word refers to and my response must depend on that knowledge. To an atheist, God is at least a concept he/she is familiar enough with to disbelieve in.

The fact that people say they believe or don't believe gives away the fact that they don't know. When you know, you don't have to believe because you know. If you're standing outside and someone asks you if it's raining, you can say yes or no because the fact is evident in your experience.

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski

I'm pretty closed minded about Santa Claus too.

Oh, by the way...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

you have to agree to hold back on the insults and jokes against each others beliefs in order for that to work

I encourage others to joke and insult my beliefs. Offend me. Take your best shot.

That's the kind of certainty I have about them. If I'm offended, then there is something there that I can work with. If it's more dribble from a sleeping mind, I'll try to shake them awake.

NiteHackr
Derezo said:

I encourage others to joke and insult my beliefs. Offend me. Take your best shot.

What are your beliefs anyhow? Can't very well insult or joke about nothing. ;)

Derezo

I believe that genetics are the origin of all the traits that life encompasses. What is bred in the bone will come out in the flesh.

Of course, that is of biblical nature. I don't have a lot of beliefs, but I believe that others hold far too many and adopt them carelessly. Insult that one.

NiteHackr

I don't enjoy insulting or making fun of other people's beliefs.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Sometimes it's very effective.

{"name":"zopbu.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/8\/e86eee6babcd50e0d11e4835d4c9dc23.jpg","w":600,"h":530,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/8\/e86eee6babcd50e0d11e4835d4c9dc23"}zopbu.jpg

William Labbett
Derezo said:

I don't have a lot of beliefs, but I believe that others hold far too many and adopt them carelessly.

That's a really s_h_i_t belief. It just shows you think people aught to be more like you

_Kronk_
Neil Roy said:

I believe you all love to argue. 5 pages in here already?!

I'm done :) We'll all find out in the end I suppose.

bamccaig

Dude, I play nothing but Devil's Advocate around here. What kind of questions wouldn't I ask if I did Bible studies? Can you even imagine? ;D Most of my friends read more atheist than theist apologetics anyway ...

Since you don't seem to question anything the Bible says I doubt you'd question much. ::) By the room, I didn't mean hanging out with friends. I meant meeting with other religious people (i.e., church or Bible studies). If you don't go then you hardly qualify.

23yrold3yrold
bamccaig said:

Since you don't seem to question anything the Bible says I doubt you'd question much.

And you would get the idea I don't question the Bible from where? I've spoken a lot about basic reading comprehension (and again, I would make the same assertions if I were an atheist) but just because the Bible says something in plain text doesn't automatically mean I'm on board. Obviously. Maybe I need to pull out the LotR example again instead ...

Quote:

I meant meeting with other religious people (i.e., church or Bible studies). If you don't go then you hardly qualify.

My friends are ministry workers I met at church and I teach Sunday School. What's the qualification I'm missing?

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Derezo

It just shows you think people aught to be more like you

I do think that way, when it comes to beliefs, but I do also believe that everyone who is alive today or who will ever live and has ever lived, are a unique, fractal expression of the universe.

bamccaig

I question everything that comes from an untrusted source.

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski

It's the ideas that matter, not Darwin's exact words. Natural selection seems quite sensible to me.

[EDIT]

If you believe the words are more important, then maybe a book written by some superstitious stone-age goatherders might seem reasonable.

bamccaig

Darwin died over 100 years ago. :P There is an entire scientific community today to back the theory of evolution now. IIRC, Darwin wasn't entirely right, but I think he is credited as being the first to see the pattern (science, unlike religion, is an iterative process; if at first you don't succeed, you revise and try again). What's more, evolution makes sense, unlike the Bible and God. I questioned it. On numerous occasions. It holds up, IMHO.

Agreeing with a scientific idea doesn't mean that I subscribe to every little microscopic detail that any scientist claims about it. It means that I agree that species evolve and that humans are the result of evolution, not a supreme being. I'm not a scientist so I'm not going to keep up with nor understand every little detail about the science behind it. Who has that kind of time? Surely, not even all of the scientists that study it know every little detail proposed across the planet. They specialize in their fields and understand what they need to do their work. We're not computers. We're human. I'm a computer programmer. Human evolution doesn't come up at work. That doesn't discredit it. :P I leave the study of biology (including evolution) to the actual scientists and catch what I can when I can.

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Thomas Fjellstrom
Neil Roy said:

I can't show you God... you can't show me evolution.

Thats the whole basis of science, provability. If you can't test it in a reproducible way, or see it, it isn't a viable theory.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Neil Roy said:

There is an entire religious community today to back up the idea of God now.

At one time, the common man believed the earth to be flat. Religion is just taking a little longer. http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/606868/910806#target (click the link in that post)

William Labbett
Derezo said:

I do think that way, when it comes to beliefs, but I do also believe that everyone who is alive today or who will ever live and has ever lived, are a unique, fractal expression of the universe.

Nice to see you weren't offended by my obnoxious post.

That's an interesting belief. Perhaps the act of belief is an acknowledgement of the inherently mysterious nature of existence, but "a unique, fractal expression of the universe.", is an abstract concept whose grandeur might diminish if expanded into terms more amenable to everyday understanding.

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski

Watches don't have big toes, appendixes that get inflamed, a spine that's terribly suited for upright walking, on and on and on. In other words, it was designed, not just random junk, some of which happened to work. Maybe the watches that have Roman numerals on the face have something non-functional, but that's about it. I wonder why nobody's invented a digital watch that displays Roman numerals?

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

The apostles died almost 2000 years ago. :P There is an entire religious community today to back up the idea of God now. IIRC, the religious community wasn't entirely right, but they were the first to see a pattern. What's more, God makes sense, unlike "Origin of the Species" and Darwin. I questioned it. On numerous occasions. It holds up, IMHO. :)

You see, it all depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

They can't actually back up the idea of God with evidence. All they can give is opinions and man maintained text. If you're willing to believe that then I have a book you need to read that details how God wants you to give me all of your money. :D

Neil Roy said:

I can't show you God... you can't show me evolution.

I can't, but I bet scientists can. It has allegedly been witnessed in laboratories in simpler organisms (in more complex organisms it makes sense for changes to be more subtle on such a large and complicated scale). IIRC, Wikipedia said that fruit flies have been observed evolving in the laboratory, for example.

Neil Roy said:

I can't talk to God, but I believe He is an all powerful intellect,...

Yet so many Christians insist that God has given them messages and the like. :P Not you, I guess, which I must admit is refreshing, but nevertheless...

Neil Roy said:

...you can't talk to evolution, but you believe it is an all powerful intellect (it DOES make intelligent decisions after all, and intelligent decisions require an intelligence).

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I think the changes are more accurately described as "accidental" or "random". The "intelligent" or "guided" part is natural selection. That is, if an animal evolves to have attributes that benefit it in its environment then it is more likely to succeed (and therefore pass on its attributes). Contrarily, if an animal evolves to have attributes that hinder it in its environment then it's more likely to fail (and therefore not pass on its attributes). It should then be obvious that attributes that benefit the animal should most often succeed those that don't. To the best of my knowledge, evolution is not believed to be an intelligent mind making decisions, as if each cell gets to decide what its clone is, but rather the clones are just natural imperfections that occasionally result in benefits or hindrances that affect the animal's success in life. It just so happens that attributes are passed down as a result of the reproduction process of organisms so these "imperfections" tend to be passed on and can accumulate.

Neil Roy said:

Evolution is as much a religion as any of the others out there.

It's really not. :) It's a science, and a science that is very well accepted by the scientific community. The difference between the scientific community and religious communities is that the former requires you to be intelligent, educated, and competent to succeed; the latter only really requires your nonresistance. ;D

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski
Neil Roy said:

Everything about us screams intelligent design, more complex than any machine we can create.

Doesn't this say that we can't create complex machines? (yet) Until the 1950's, science couldn't synthesize table sugar either. And I can't hear the "screams" of intelligent design.

[EDIT]

Then who created this god? It implies some sort of meta-god, does it not? And then it begs the question of who created the meta-god. If you say "god just is" then you're falling into the trap of truth by assertion.

[EDIT for Neil Roy's edit]

Quote:

For example, if you don't have eyes, and don't know light exists, how do you go about evolving an eye to see it? Wait millions of years, but my lifespan isn't that long... as you can see (pun alert) evolution IS a religion without any facts (or even logic) to back it up.

You know how the infrared sensing "pits" in a pit viper work? You can feel the heat of the sun beating on your skin? It doesn't take much imagination to narrow the aperture of the "pit" (becoming more like a pinhole camera) along with mutations that make the light sensing cells more sensitive to allow for the reduced light of the smaller aperture.

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski
bamccaig

;D

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski
Neil Roy said:

So you don't know the details, you just believe in it blindly? :)

I use Occam's Razor to cut out the bullshit. Basically, it says the simpler explanation is the most likely. Sweeping generalizations about god's power don't fit "simple explanation".

[EDIT]

I was wrong in this respect.

Quote:

The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

So you don't know the details, you just believe in it blindly? :)

I don't pray to it or give it money on Sundays. I believe that it sufficiently explains our existence. I'm not religiously linked to the idea. I'm not a scientist so it's not my job or interest to study it. I also don't consider it very important for my life; at least not directly. That is, I'd much rather write code, play video games, or watch TV than read scientific journals. It's good for humanity as a whole to understand as much as we can, but it isn't necessary for each of us to understand the minuscule details of the science behind it.

Most people don't need to know it in their everyday life. It doesn't matter much where we came from (assuming the Bible is bullshit). Each of our lives are insignificant to the big picture. People should live their lives and enjoy them. If studying scientific journals is fun then go for it. If studying the Bible is fun then go for it. If playing video games and drinking beer is fun then go for it. :) Some people find joy in pushing the boundaries of science and that's great. It doesn't mean all atheists have to be scientists to justify their lack of belief in any deities. ::)

I don't take evolution blindly. I understand it on a simple scale. High school science classes gave me a sufficient understanding to comprehend what evolution is and why it occurs. It makes sufficient sense to me. It makes a lot more sense than the Bible does. I don't define myself by my beliefs in science though. As a matter of fact, I'm usually only an atheist when I'm debating with religious people (or making fun of them :-X). I'm just a computer programmer when I'm not. :o

William Labbett

Neither darwin or religion seem to be adequate to explain our origins.

23yrold3yrold

Neither darwin or religion seem to be adequate to explain our origins.

We have a new smartest post in the thread.

Arthur Kalliokoski

And maybe we'll never know. What a boring world it would be if everything was known!

bamccaig

Neither darwin or religion seem to be adequate to explain our origins.

Once again, Darwin is well over 100 years ago, so you're looking at some very outdated science... :-/ Science may never fully explain everything, but that's no reason to stop trying to explain what we can... It explains a lot, which BTW is what brings this community together at all. ::) Religion doesn't really explain anything. It just calls it a black box and calls it a day. How original.

Arthur Kalliokoski
bamccaig said:

Religion doesn't really explain anything. It just calls it a black box and calls it a day. How original.

Do I have your permission to sig that?

William Labbett

William Labbett said:Neither darwin or religion seem to be adequate to explain our origins.
We have a new smartest post in the thread.

I was merely quoting to something this guy http://www.barrylong.org/ said.

bamccaig said:

Once again, Darwin is well over 100 years ago, so you're looking at some very outdated science...

The vailidity of Darwin's theories doesn't change simply because it's old anymore than a Pythagoras' theorem is getting outdated.

Quote:

Science may never fully explain everything, but that's no reason to stop trying to explain what we can... It explains a lot, which BTW is what brings this community together at all. ::)

I wasn't saying that science is no good to us, just that it doesn't help in terms of self-knowledge.

Arthur Kalliokoski

I wasn't saying that science is no good to us, just that it doesn't help in terms of self-knowledge.

It's a little too close to ourselves to look at it objectively.

23yrold3yrold

I was merely quoting to something this guy http://www.barrylong.org/ said.

Nothing new has been said in this thread, so whatever. :)

Quote:

The vailidity of Darwin's theories doesn't change simply because it's old anymore than a Pythagoras' theorem is getting outdated.

To be fair, the theories have developed a lot since then. Like, a lot lot.

bamccaig said:

Religion doesn't really explain anything.

Is there a religion that posits "explanation" as its primary purpose? Or is this still that belief that religion is the old science?

Arthur Kalliokoski

Is there a religion that posits "explanation" as its primary purpose?

What other purposes does religion have? Other than allowing the ruling class to retain power?

23yrold3yrold

What other purposes does religion have?

Depends on the religion. Enlightenment, salvation, karma, reincarnation, power ... what do they say?

Arthur Kalliokoski

Depends on the religion. Enlightenment, salvation, karma, reincarnation, power ... what do they say?

Enlightened people have an explaination of sorts.
Salvation: What happens to me after I die?
karma: Why can't I get girls? I'm a nice guy?
Reincarnation: See Salvation
power: human instinct, not religion.

Edgar Reynaldo

What other purposes does religion have? Other than allowing the ruling class to retain power?

This is ridiculous. I'm 'religious' and I'm not in the ruling class, nor does it give me power over people. Nor do I follow Christianity to achieve either of those aims.

23yrold3yrold

Really? Is meditation a religion then? What about forgiveness? Redemption? What about non-religious grounds for belief in things like karma?

You're either trolling or really reaching to justify your own beliefs ...

This is ridiculous.

We've been in the realm of "ridiculous" for a while now ...

Arthur Kalliokoski

This is ridiculous. I'm 'religious' and I'm not in the ruling class, nor does it give me power over people. Nor do I follow Christianity to achieve either of those aims.

I meant the ruling class uses it to get people to do what the ruling class wants. "Divine right" and all that.

blargmob

What other purposes does religion have? Other than allowing the ruling class to retain power?

The Book of Eli is a good movie that demonstrates this.

Matthew Leverton

The Book of Eli is a good movie that demonstrates this.

At the end of the movie, you learn that Eli is blind and had the entire Bible memorized.

blargmob

At the end of the movie, you learn that Eli is blind and had the entire Bible memorized.

HE WAS NOT BLIND.

THIS IS A COMMON MISCONCEPTION.

ELI WAS NOT BLIND.

ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS.
;)

Arthur Kalliokoski

Hmmm... I might have to "acquire" this movie to watch it.

Matthew Leverton

THIS IS A COMMON MISCONCEPTION.

Wow, even the movie's writer is wrong!

Quote:

My view is that when you see what the book is and that he’s blind that to me tells you god must exist. If not, then there’s no other explanation for how he’s been able to do all that he did. Now I don’t know how many people are picking up on that theme, unless you’re a person of faith perhaps.

Short version: if you didn't get that the punch line of the entire movie was his blindness, you suck!

Derezo

video

Please watch. (I think it's old enough and public enough for me to have on my channel, but it could disappear)

an abstract concept whose grandeur might diminish if expanded into terms more amenable to everyday understanding.

Yes. It does appear less significant as you expand on it and generalize it. However, it doesn't make it any less correct. Nothing that has existed has ever been like you (or me, or anyone) and we all have within us an incredible creative energy that only exists because of what has existed before us and caused us into being.

However, I have started on my third beer with a friend, so I will discontinue my input ;)

blargmob

Wow, even the movie's writer is wrong!

I guessed you completely missed the caps-lock, mocking sarcasm (and the winky).

Sure is hard to deliver that sort of thing through text on the internetz!

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

blargmob

{"name":"603811","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/b\/4bd3bb7196a3768854cac64b834fcecf.png","w":940,"h":850,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/b\/4bd3bb7196a3768854cac64b834fcecf"}603811

Matthew Leverton

and the winky

The wink was obviously your way of saying he was only blind in one eye. >:(

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

23yrold3yrold

It's assuming mutual exclusion after all the previous discussion too. Pretty sure it's just more sarcasm (big shock).

Mark Oates

Book of Eli! Hey, I saw that yesterday.

It was pretty good. I liked the slow-paced drama and cinematic additions so it would be MOAR HOLY.

Matthew Leverton

I liked the part where Eli killed people and then ate them for supper.

type568

Knowing our origins wouldn't answer all questions. We all know the starting position of a Chess game, but even the Jaguar doesn't know all the possible endings.

Tobias Dammers

The vailidity of Darwin's theories doesn't change simply because it's old anymore than a Pythagoras' theorem is getting outdated.

It does, just like Pythagoras' theorem does. The core idea is still valid, but the context has been amended to account for new insights. The Pythagorean theorem has been amended in at least two ways ever since Pythagoras conceived it:

  • it is only valid on perfectly flat surfaces

  • it can be generalized from 2-space to N-space, so that:

<math>\sum_{i=1}^N d_i^2 = c^2</math>
(where di is the distance between the ends of the hypotenuse in dimension i)

Likewise, newer insights have amended the theory of Evolution, even though the basic idea (diverse lifeforms through mutation and selection) is still observably valid.

Matthew Leverton

To summarize this thread:

video

bamccaig

Do I have your permission to sig that?

Yes? :P

The Book of Eli is a good movie that demonstrates this.

That was a great movie, though I'm not religious. :) I don't remember it well, but I do seem to recall him being blind. :)

Neil Roy said:

Also, again, atheists mocking religion. Notice you don't normally see religion mocking and making fun of atheists?

I actually do, quite often. In fact, that's one of the things that makes it so enjoyable to debate it. Whenever the subject comes up I'm told how wrong I am by Christians (and other religious people). The problem is that the mocking is usually silly. Equivalent to childs play or relying on the assumption that the science is wrong (i.e., inside jokes based on fallacies). In general, it's pretty hard to really make fun of atheists.

For starters, we don't care. I couldn't really care less if I'm right or wrong. If there is a God, and he is good and peaceful and loves me, then I have to assume that he can accept my choice not to believe in him based on what little "evidence" he left behind. If it's not true that he's a loving, peaceful God then the Bible is wrong and the whole concept of a Christian God (the only one I'm familiar with) is moot anyway. Contrary to the "believe because I have nothing to lose" argument, I'm actually being honest with myself (and with a God, if one exists); whereas somebody claiming to believe just to cover their ass is clearly lying about their belief and would be considered a fraud by any competent God.

Besides, my "beliefs" are based on scientific evidence, logic, and reason. It's pretty difficult to challenge that without opening one's own beliefs up to scrutiny, and since religious beliefs are always based on faith that makes it pretty damn difficult to defend in a logical argument/discussion/debate. By definition, there is no logical defense. You either forfeit or lose.

William Labbett

Pythagoras never suggested it was valid on surfaces that weren't perfectly flat.

That equation is only true for N = 1 isn't it ?

Tobias Dammers

bam: Science does not answer all the "big questions", and it never will. IMO, most of these questions are flawed themselves (I'm kind of Zen that way), but everyone's entitled to their own interpretations.

Pythagoras never suggested it was valid on surfaces that weren't perfectly flat.

He didn't, because non-Euclidean geometry hadn't been invented yet.

Quote:

That equation is only true for N = 1 isn't it ?

Fixed. The gist is that given two points in N-space, you can calculate their straight-line distance by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the distances along each axis (provided the axes are aligned orthogonally and don't wrap).

Dizzy Egg

(Shuffles away from the thread whistling)...

Derezo
bamccaig said:

since religious beliefs are always based on faith that makes it pretty damn difficult to defend in a logical argument/discussion/debate. By definition, there is no logical defense. You either forfeit or lose.

Nah, there is a separation in accordance to their religion. That's the way that these things work.

They believe that only some can be saved, and hence only some of them can be saved. It's all about whether or not they can become aware of that. Those are the ones that are saved -- the ones whom abandon the ideals of their authorities and adopt the fractal realities of themselves.

;)

Not all religious people have it completely upside down. Mr. Barry has a grasp of how to deal with religion with a more realistic perspective. I have significantly more tolerance for non-denominational Christians, as I do hold the belief that Jesus of Nazareth told some rather provocative truths.

Vanneto

Seeing this thread makes me think God created humanity by taking a nasty dump.

WOW that was harsh. ;D

Ron Novy

Not trying to get into the conversation here and I'm not reading through the whole thread... These conversations last too long and go too quickly.

These days when someone asks me if I believe in God or not I flip a coin. Doesn't matter if they call it or if you call it, just flip it and let them decide what it means... ::)

Evert
_Kronk_ said:

the big bang theory has no credence.

People didn't dream up the idea of a Big Bang out of nothing, the idea came from observational evidence that there must have been one. It's also not a theory in the normal meaning of the word "theory", it'd be more accurately called a model (and in fact is).

_Kronk_ said:

Well, if you just disappear when you die, why not die now? What you live for now is irrelevant. Don't take this the wrong way; I Don't Want You To Kill Yourself, but without something absolute; something that cannot change to live for and see everything out of, everything else is meaningless. The ultimate beauty in life is seeing the hand of the Creator in everything that He lovingly created.

I never understand that argument. It's so silly.
If your ultimate goal is to meet "the Creator" and you meet him by dying, then why don't you go and kill yourself so you get to reach your goal sooner? (Don't bother answering that, by the way).
If this life is all you will ever have, then that makes it almost infinitely valuable. You have to make the most out of it, because after this there is nothing. That's why you don't go and kill yourself.

Now I'm going to skim the rest of the thread before dinner.

gnolam

Thats the whole basis of science, provability.

No, it's falsifiability. If it can't be proven wrong, it's not science.

(BTW, I found this post absolutely hilarious. It's like all the misconceptions about evolution in one. :D)

Dizzy Egg
Gnolam said:

(BTW, I found this post absolutely hilarious. It's like all the misconceptions about evolution in one. :D)

That made me laugh too!

Onewing
Evert said:

I never understand that argument. It's so silly.

Yeah, I used to believe the "if you don't believe in a higher power, then what's the point of living" methodology as well. Evert helped enlighten me there.

Quote:

If your ultimate goal is to meet "the Creator" and you meet him by dying, then why don't you go and kill yourself so you get to reach your goal sooner?

I know you said don't bother to answer, but I have some input. It's been on my mind before and I have wished death upon myself (even going as far as approaching how I would do it). Ultimately, I decided a long time ago that my existence has some purpose and I will be defying the god that I believe in by committing suicide and thus I must continue to live and attempt to discover what it is I'm supposed to be doing down here.

Anywho, just a random thought: I imagine the answer is "yes" to the question "does going to sleep make being awake more valuable"?

On another note, going way back to the pink unicorn (or the flying spaghetti monster), I haven't seen either so I suppose they could exist. Afterall, I don't think it's impossible that aliens exist. To me, just because it is unknown doesn't mean that is impossible, just more likely improbable. Then it just becomes a matter of saying if that probability is so low that it becomes neglectable. I'm of the faith that it is not in terms of a higher power. The question then becomes what is this higher power, what religion is right and then constantly spending my life meditating on that and trying to make a connection. I don't go around (anymore) cursing God when things go wrong or thanking God when things go right.

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

van_houtte

{"name":"uVQvU.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/6\/26a906da8ade7db11d8bd5f5efd78476.gif","w":504,"h":1648,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/6\/26a906da8ade7db11d8bd5f5efd78476"}uVQvU.gif

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

with the exception of evolution

:o
Have you ever seen... Carl Sagan?

video

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski

If there's no evolution, why would men and chimpanzees have 99 percent of genes in common? Is it god's way of messing with our heads? Did the devil do it to confuse us? And why was it hidden so well you need highly specialized techniques to find this out?

23yrold3yrold

If there's no evolution, why would men and chimpanzees have 99 percent of genes in common?

I've never understood this line of reasoning. Look at how similar men and chimpanzees are physically. Doesn't it stand to reason that 99% of their blueprints would match? Is that not something we could have assumed at the outset, regardless of origin?

It's like saying a 1972 Plymouth Barracuda is 99% the same as a 1974 Plymouth Barracuda. No kidding. I'll go get your prize for grasping the obvious.

Arthur Kalliokoski

It's like saying a 1972 Plymouth Barracuda is 99% the same as a 1974 Plymouth Barracuda.

the '74 "evolved" from the '72, thanks for playing.

23yrold3yrold

How did it evolve? Did they leave it in primordial goo, or was it more like a Pokemon thing?

I'm pretty sure it was designed. I don't know. Maybe Plymouth is a scientific theory and not a business as I was previously led to believe? I don't get out much. Still doesn't address how something that's 99% like some other thing is 99% like some other thing, but maybe I'm wrong on that too. It is mid-week and I'm kind of tired ...

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

But when it comes to evolution ... the idea is still ridiculous and makes me laugh every time I hear someone say that something evolved.

Is there anything specific about it that is "ridiculous"? I'm not familiar with the views against the idea of gradual progression from single celled organisms to the complex masses of trillions of cells that my soul now embodies today. There is an alternative idea?

I only hope you're not referring to the idea that the world as it is in it's present form was instantiated 5,000 years ago with all the plants and animals, oil and fossils, mountains and fissures, and of course, humans. People who believe in that are typically brainwashed into it from a very young age and it's very difficult to reverse.

Thomas Fjellstrom
gnolam said:

No, it's falsifiability. If it can't be proven wrong, it's not science.

Indeed. Or at least that it should be possible to prove it wrong.

Arthur Kalliokoski

I'm pretty sure it was designed.

If we somehow found an extraterrestrial civilization, and they had a ground friction effect vehicle that was as similar to ours as a '72 Barracuda is to a '74, that'd be too incredible to believe. Same for why a man is so similar to a chimp, if he was designed separately then why the similarity?

Thomas Fjellstrom

Same for why a man is so similar to a chimp, if he was designed separately then why the similarity?

Copy and paste? ;D

23yrold3yrold

if he was designed separately then why the similarity?

Why is the word "separately" in there? Pretending for a moment that the creation account is true, what assumptions can we make about the process? I'd say none ...

If I were the super-cheesy fundie type, I might think God made animals like man when He was trying to find him an appropriate partner in the Garden of Eden. That's a perfectly congruent theory I just yanked completely out of my butt (sorry about the smell). But ultimately, I got no clue. You got no clue. All I know is a look at a man and I look at a chimp and I think "Yup, that's pretty close" and move on, because it's meaningless. It can be explained without evolution. You could probably come up with as many congruent theories for it as there are theories of creation, ridiculous or otherwise. Something that can "prove" a multitude of theories strikes me as pretty poor proof, but hey ...

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski

Stephan Hawking would be having conniptions knowing his words were twisted in such a way. And Einstein muttered about "The Old One" and "God" in a metaphorical way, but he was a devout atheist.

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Derezo

Same for why a man is so similar to a chimp, if he was designed separately then why the similarity?

I'm pretty open to the idea that we're not entirely 'natural' and have had outside influence from extra-terrestrials. It's possible that our genetics have been modified, on purpose, by a significantly more advanced civilization. For what purpose, I do not know.

The evidence I see in support for that idea is the white skinned blue eyed creatures like myself. It's a bizarre strain, and the civilizations they have created seem more successful with their progress towards world domination than other strains. They've colonized the most land and have historically wiped out the indigenous populations as they go.

... but that's not going to turn me into a self-hating white racist :P It's equally as likely that this strain evolved naturally by adapting to their region of the planet. The survival mechanisms and physical traits they have would be a reflection of that.

[edit]

Neil Roy said:

I've already explained why I feel evilution is ridiculous

That seems to be your answer for everything ;D If you could link it, I'd believe you.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Neil Roy said:

Admittedly, I don't know if he said those things, BUT, the points made in that video are still valid, no matter who said them.

Only if you trust the source of the video. A bunch of it could be mis-interpreted garbage. I didn't get past the text at the beginning with the lame "holy" music. I figured that was the best it was going to get and closed it.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Derezo said:

I'm pretty open to the idea that we're not entirely 'natural' and have had outside influence from extra-terrestrials.

Seems to me that's just a pseudo-science type of "god". Who created them?

Quote:

The evidence I see in support for that idea is the white skinned blue eyed creatures like myself. It's a bizarre strain, and the civilizations they have created seem more successful with their progress towards world domination than other strains. They've colonized the most land and have historically wiped out the indigenous populations as they go.

The people who moved into northern Europe needed to absorb more sunlight for vitamin D production, so natural selection favored white people. "What? Hit her up? She's got rickets! Eewww!" And they favored science over religion a bit more than the people who stayed in mellower climes, so they refined ships and projectile weapons more than the others. Guns, ships and germs conquered the world.

J-Gamer

@Neil: Here's an explanation of how evolution basically works.
We all know we originate from a combination of two cells: one from our mother and one from our father. Each of them carries half the genetic material of their respective parent. During the production of these cells, there is the possibility that a part of the genetic material mutates. This mutation, when given to the next generation, will trigger a change in one of the properties of the child. When this change has made the new organism a better one, the organism will have more chance of survival and will give the new property to the next generations. If it is a change for the worse, the organism won't stand a chance to survive, and the bad change won't get to the next generations. When this happens for generation after generation for a few thousands/millions of years, you get significant changes, like the specialized beak of a woodpecker.

I hope this is clear enough ;D

Arthur Kalliokoski
J-Gamer said:

If it is a change for the worse, the organism won't stand a chance to survive

Not "won't stand a chance" but a fraction of a percentage less likely to survive will add up over time. For instance, the organisms who could tell light from darkness, with no ability to focus, much less pass an eye chart with 20/20 vision.

J-Gamer

Thanks for correcting me :) That's what I actually meant... Let me rephrase that part:
When the change is for the worse, the organism will have less chance of survival, and will have less chance to give the bad change to the next generation.

NiteHackr

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

Derezo

Seems to me that's just a pseudo-science type of "god".

How does anything I said relate with the concepts of god or pseudoscience? It's just an idea, and there is no way to test it to make it scientific without ETs. Extra-terrestials -- life on other worlds -- is something that I do "believe" in, but I don't have any representation for what that belief consists of, so I'd rather not call it a belief. However, I feel that I have an understanding that we are one star in a massive network of hundreds of millions of stars that make up our single galaxy. I understand that very few of these are capable of harbouring advanced lifeforms like myself, but I imagine that our own galaxy is teeming with other life. While there is no constructive, physical evidence of this, there is a significant degree of circumstantial evidence, anecdotal evidence, convincing observations, etc. I could go on and on about that, but there's really no point. What I have said has proven nothing, and was not intended to prove anything.

Quote:

Who created them?

ERROR: SHARED MEANING FOR SYMBOLIC ENTRIES WERE NOT FOUND FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS
Who
Created
Them

Arthur Kalliokoski
Neil Roy said:

I understand evolution completely

Also doubtful.

[EDIT]

OTOH, I'm amazed by how close our ideas about coding are. Maybe it's because we started with old Borland crap on an old 8088 compatible etc.

gnolam
Neil Roy said:

I understand evolution completely

From this post, for example, it's obvious that you don't. Not even a little bit. :P

NiteHackr

I do have a difficult time sometimes putting my understanding and feelings into words. Which is another good reason to end this now rather than have it get more.... passionate. Believe what you wish about me. ;)

As for coding, yeah, the first computer I coded on at all was a TRS-80 model 1 with 5K RAM. :) I used to love assembly programming on my C64. Good times, I miss those days, seemed like programming was more fun, at least to me.

J-Gamer
Neil Roy said:

As for natural selection (and who is doing the selecting?)

No-one, just like I pointed out in my previous post.

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

I do have a difficult time sometimes putting my understanding and feelings into words.

You also have a difficult time finding resources that agree with your statements and are able to put it into good words. The forum supports hot-linking.

NiteHackr

603814

That pretty much sums up this thread. ;)

J-Gamer

Could this get locked? It has no use anyway.

bamccaig

video

Dizzy Egg

I have learned from this thread that everything is theory, no-one is right, and no amount of evidence will ever change that. Believe what you want to and try to live a full happy life. Lock it up Matthew x

Thomas Fjellstrom
Dizzy Egg said:

I have learned from this thread that everything is theory, no-one is right, and no amount of evidence will ever change that.

Well you are right in a way. Not everyone will agree, and thus this is pointless. But there is a correct answer.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Quote:

But one side can be, and is right.

Only if the question and answer can be stated as a boolean, i.e. "Is there a God with such and such qualities, yes or no?". Evolution will doubtless continue to be refined (not thrown out wholesale) just as our ideas of how the nervous system worked paralleled our development of the telegraph, telephone exchanges and then computers.

Derezo

@bamccaig: Great video. That needs to be spread ;D

Thomas Fjellstrom

Only if the question and answer can be stated as a boolean, i.e. "Is there a God with such and such qualities, yes or no?". Evolution will doubtless continue to be refined (not thrown out wholesale) just as our ideas of how the nervous system worked paralleled our development of the telegraph, telephone exchanges and then computers.

Yeah, I corrected that before you posted. That sentence was completely false.

Tobias Dammers

Fuck that.

You want to promote a fictional entity (God, Vishnu, an "Intelligent Creator", the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever), fine, but:

  • Give us a proper definition of your deity, otherwise we're talking about nothing

  • You postulate the deity, so it's your burden of proof. Not the Atheist's.

Also:
{"name":"science.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/3\/53817aa38cffd1e7c7146397484748cb.jpg","w":500,"h":389,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/3\/53817aa38cffd1e7c7146397484748cb"}science.jpg
Evolution is happening, it is observable, falsifyable, and comes with a truckload of evidence to support it.

Matthew Leverton
Derezo said:

@bamccaig: Great video. That needs to be spread

It's a horrible video. He kept talking about Eve-olution. What is this, some creationist propaganda? >:(

Polybios

IMHO thinking of God/... as the creator is an obvious anthropomorphism. It's a bit related to idolatry.

'Making' something is a fundamental part of human life. So people made their gods (little statues etc.) and, in their anthropocentrism, thought that they were also made by some big creator, because they couldn't imagine anything else.

I think there really is a deep religious meaning in understanding that we were not 'made', that we differ from the products of our hands. That's the whole point of monotheism after all. If you 'pray' to a thing made by you, you become partially enslaved (modern example: money).

A good part of the bible is about idolatry etc., but this book has a lot of different layers. It is a formidable piece of world literature. But a mindset of interpreting it literally is exactly what Jesus criticized, if I remember correctly (scribes, teachers of the law). ;)

Derezo

Anyone else have a man-crush on James Randi?

video

Arthur Kalliokoski
Derezo said:

Anyone else have a man-crush on James Randi?

Eewww! No! But I'd shake his hand.

[EDIT]

Googling for him is quite informative.

[EDIT2]

I found this little gem wandering around the links:

We have no doubt that the Aztec beliefs were nuts. I wonder what the future will say about Christianity.“Why,” I asked the Aztec priest, “Do you intend to cut that man’s heart out?”

“Because we must.” He said.

“Why?”

“Because if we don’t sacrifice him to the Sun God, the sun will not rise tomorrow and our world will surely end.” His voice had a slight British accent, like a character in an old Hollywood biblical epic.

“Really. How do you know this?”

“Because we’ve made a sacrifice every day, and the sun has never failed to rise,” he said, looking at me as if he were talking to a particularly dense child. ”It’s obvious.”

“Why don’t you just see what happens if you let the man live?”

“We can’t take that chance. Would you risk the end of the world?”

“But it’s a man’s life…”

“No. He will not really die. All death is an illusion. He will merely move on to the next life. No doubt he’ll be happier there.”

“I suppose he will be, if people won’t kill him there to make the sun rise.”

[EDIT3]

Wait! I have seen this Randi before!

video

gnolam
Polybios said:

IMHO thinking of God/... as the creator is an obvious anthropomorphism.

Xenophanes of Colophon, ~570-475 BC said:

But mortals deem that the gods are begotten as they are, and have clothes like theirs, and voice and form.
Yes, and if oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds.
The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair.

Also: Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs

Arthur Kalliokoski

I especially notice how often Jesus is depicted as a blond blue-eyed metrosexual appearing guy, not as a man in the Middle East who blended in so well that Judas had to point him out to the Roman soldiers, let alone a skinny weakling who had a very physically demanding means of working for a living.

Vanneto

Are you saying that Jesus was... dramatic silence black?!? BLASPHEMER!!!

Arthur Kalliokoski
Vanneto said:

Are you saying that Jesus was... dramatic silence black?!? BLASPHEMER!!!

Of course not! He looked much more like Osama bin Laden. Probably a good bit shorter.

[EDIT]

I don't know; what happened to it? You must have edited it out of your post so I couldn't see it ...

If I edit a post to change what was said (other than spelling errors) I always put a nice big [EDIT] in there. Nice of you to imply I'm a liar.

blargmob
Neil Roy said:

But when it comes to evolution, it doesn't matter how much you dress it up with special effects and soft spoken charismatic scientists, the idea is still ridiculous and makes me laugh every time I hear someone say that something evolved.

AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAH!!111!11one!1!

OH MAN.

For a second there, I thought you were serious...

You might as well deny the existence of planet Earth, or gravity, or yourself. You don't have to "believe" it, but the simple truth is: Evolution is real. It is a fact of life. Even someone like you can run simple experiments to prove it.

You silly, silly man.

EDIT:

Neil Roy said:

The following video makes some very good points.

No it doesn't. In fact, it doesn't make a single valid point that isn't explained thoroughly by the concepts of the Big Bang. There is absolutely nothing in that video has hasn't been addressed already. Again, do your research and/or take some formal science classes; i.e. you have no idea what you're talking about.

NiteHackr

And you guys wonder why I deleted all my posts in the last thread. When I say I am done with the topic, that means I am done. But you keep quoting old posts.

I may end up deleting all my old posts again so it can truly be done. :)

type568
Neil Roy said:

And you guys wonder why I deleted all my posts in the last thread. When I say I am done with the topic, that means I am done. But you keep quoting old posts.

How does one delete his posts?

NiteHackr

You edit them and erase the content replaced by a <deleted> or maybe a dot. ;)

Seriously, it was an interesting subject, but we've debated it to death, or at least I have.

Arthur Kalliokoski
type568 said:

How does one delete his posts?

With the edit button, select all, delete and Update Post?

Thomas Fjellstrom

It really isn't that interesting if you're not willing to even try to consider any other view points but your own.

NiteHackr

There, I just demonstrated how to delete them. Scroll up, I gave plenty of examples of posts replaced with: "Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)"

Arthur Kalliokoski

const char attitude[] = "<shrug>";

Thomas Fjellstrom

I dunno, I've always had a low view of people who edit afterwards. Makes you seem like a kid trying to hide something they did wrong.

NiteHackr

I was fine with the various replies actually... until I start seeing insulting responses like:

AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAH!!111!11one!1! OH MAN.For a second there, I thought you were serious... You might as well deny the existence of planet Earth, or gravity, or yourself. You don't have to "believe" it, but the simple truth is: Evolution is real. It is a fact of life. Even someone like you can run simple experiments to prove it. You silly, silly man .

That's where I realize I need to delete my posts to avoid people trying to drag me into a debate I no longer wish to take part in.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Neil Roy said:

t's where I realize I need to delete my posts to avoid people trying to drag me into a debate I no longer wish to take part in.

Do what I do, ignore the thread.

blargmob

Do what I do, ignore the thread.

I usually do that with debate-threads that I know I'll get heated in; but there have been too many of these threads since the last one I posted in to let this one pass by unscathed.

23yrold3yrold

If I edit a post to change what was said (other than spelling errors) I always put a nice big [EDIT] in there. Nice of you to imply I'm a liar.

It was sarcasm, genius. ::) Why would I care about something that I don't regard (which you must have picked up from current discussion) and you can't be bothered to actually post?

PS: I'm no creationist, but I'm no evolutionist either. A skim of the last 100 posts hows nothing but talk on either side anyway.

9e7d886104348820c74166b155c3f840.gif

type568

I dunno, I've always had a low view of people who edit afterwards. Makes you seem like a kid trying to hide something they did wrong.

This. :)

Although dunno.. Kinda of, what you have said is said.. If you're off the thread, just leave it. Well, make sure no one is awaiting for your specific answer on something.. Let'em know you're off and go off. Why delete? :)

And..
I thought there was some way to actually delete. Perhaps it could be useful.

Arthur Kalliokoski

PS: I'm no creationist, but I'm no evolutionist either.

Good thing you edited that. :P

23yrold3yrold

Good thing, indeed. I'm a freaking ninja like that.

Derezo

I edit some of my posts to refine my meaning. Sometimes a lot. I should preview more often.

Neil Roy said:

When I say I am done with the topic, that means I am done.

You don't seem to think through your posts very well. You said this in a reply to a topic that you said you were done with after having said you were done with it. Clearly you really didn't mean you were done with it, because you wouldn't have came back to post about it again and whine about it.

I never post the word polysaccharides, or use italics, or use the roll eyes emoticon. ::)

You just make it way too easy man. There's nothing wrong with being wrong. I'm wrong all the time. No need to get all upset over it.

Tobias Dammers
Neil Roy said:

Seriously, it was an interesting subject, but we've debated it to death, or at least I have.

You haven't debated a bit. All you've done so far is make claims without backing them up.
You claim that God exists, but fail to provide a definition, let alone evidence.
You claim that the Evolution theory is wrong, waving away the overwhelming amount of evidence (and common sense) that supports it, postulating an alternative for which you cannot provide any evidence.

Now, instead of debating, we could also just try to open-mindedly exchange religious thoughts and ideas; I'm always interested in what people believe in and how they make sense of things - it's how I made up my own spiritual mind. Just please don't make any claims about the "truth" unless you can back them up with evidence.

And to settle this one once and for all: Being a true Atheist is not the easy way out. In the absence of a God, you'll have to face the existential questions yourself:

  • why are we here?

  • what happens when we die?

  • what is the meaning of Life?

  • where do we come from?

I've found my answers, but it was quite a wild ride. Accepting a God and taking someone's word for it would have been way easier.

23yrold3yrold

You haven't debated a bit. All you've done so far is make claims without backing them up.

Don't fool yourself. There's not a person in this thread that you didn't just describe.

Polybios

BTW. Why is it that I've never heard about creationists being active in Europe?

Excepting the pope...
edit: No! It seems, even the pope has "accepted" the theory of evolution, i. e. said it was "worth of study". :o

Idealius

How smart you are is inversely proportional to how religious you would enjoy being, however ignorance is bliss, and the only thing to be sure of is irony. So, think long and hard about your choices and how you envision your life to be day-to-day.

Karadoc ~~

Is it too late to say "in before lock"?

the '74 "evolved" from the '72, thanks for playing.

I kind of enjoyed this response. It's amusing, and I think it makes a good point — things that are so similar usually have very good reasons for being so. The '74 and the '72 share the same origin, as do humans and apes.

But the main reason I'm posting is to point out that it might be better to say that the the '72 evolved from the '74! I don't think any of us expect that an ape will somehow morph into a human over time. That's not how it works. But rather, each new generation is not quite the same as the previous generation. What I'm trying to say is that although the '72 will age and may become more similar to the '74 over time, the '72 is the new generation – slightly different from the one before it. So if anything, I'd say the '72 evolved from the '74.

Idealius said:

How smart you are is inversely proportional to how religious you would enjoy being, however ignorance is bliss, and the only thing to be sure of is irony. So, think long and hard about your choices and how you envision your life to be day-to-day.

Does this mean that people with absolutely no interest in being religious are infinitely smart? That doesn't seem quite right. Actually, maybe you're just trying to be funny or something, but I think what you said was pretty rude and unpleasant.

Johan Halmén
Karadoc ~~

Is that a computer-generated-best-guess-at-what-jesus-really-looked-like picture?

Johan Halmén

I guess it's hand painted, but based on ethnologic research.

type568

it's hand painted

It's a computer generated image, it is visible.

Johan Halmén

You're right:

{"name":"jesus_discovery.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/6\/3652443e8d0a732b08b355bfce64a6f4.jpg","w":250,"h":350,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/6\/3652443e8d0a732b08b355bfce64a6f4"}jesus_discovery.jpg

piccolo
axilmar
Dizzy Egg said:

What do people who believe God created the heaven and the Earth think about this stuff; I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just (maybe dangerously) curious about how people feel about these discoveries.

Most religious people's thought process is not altered when the encounter science. For them, their God (or Gods) is a defacto reality, and most of them don't even treat their holy writings as anything but allegory anyway. Science to them is God's way to design the universe.

bamccaig
type568 said:

I thought there was some way to actually delete. Perhaps it could be useful.

It's not useful, as demonstrated by Neil in this (and the last) thread. :-/ It's called a discussion board for a reason. :P His posts were part of the discussion and deleting them means that people that discover this thread later will be missing part of the discussion. It would be like listening to a radio show where one of the speakers didn't have a microphone...

I've deleted a few posts in my time, but I think most (if not all) were before I knew anyone had responded to them (and if somebody does respond to them then I usually apologize and fill in the blanks). I typically delete things that I don't want to have said, either because they were wrong and I'm embarrassed, or because they're controversial and I'm not sure I should say them.

Of course, I doubt Neil deleted his posts because he believes they are wrong, and it's too late to delete them because of their controversial nature as they've already fueled a flame war, so deleting them serves no constructive purpose. It seems the real reason is childish.

Append: The moderators do have the ability to delete posts if the posts break the rules though.

Just please don't make any claims about the "truth" unless you can back them up with evidence.

I personally find this behavior very provocative. The religious side likes to give their (admittedly!) faith-based beliefs as absolute truths. Then they get pissy when the atheist/science crowd refutes or refuses them and provides well supported scientific theories to the contrary. If you want to discuss your beliefs without being told you're wrong 100 times over then start by expressing them as your beliefs and not as the unquestionable truth. I don't care what you believe. I do care though if you're asserting your beliefs on others as absolute truths without any evidence to back them up because it's absolutely wrong to do so.

Vanneto

Look, why are you guys doing this? As Neil said, he thinks evolution is bogus. In my eyes (and many others) God is bogus. To them, we are wrong, to us, they are wrong.

Some people cant imagine we came from dirt. I find it very logical that we evolved. Some people can't accept that. This is all OK. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem with such discussions is that most people have their beliefs set in stone. No matter what you do, their faith is like cement shoes and they wont get rid of them no matter what. Proof that God doesn't exist? Doesn't matter much, I don't care about evidence and science... I believe.

So go watch the baby video Matthew posted or look at the GIFs posted and stop this bullshitting already. :P

Matthew Leverton
Vanneto said:

Some people cant imagine we came from dirt.

You don't believe it, because that's what the Bible teaches?

Quote:

Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground"

Psalm 104:29 "for dust you are and to dust you will return"

It's obviously talking about stardust; that's apparent if you understand old Hebrew, like I do (my native tongue).

Dizzy Egg

Just spoke to God, he says he doesn't exist and evolution is happening.

Thread solved.

type568
bamccaig said:

It's not useful, as demonstrated by Neil in this (and the last) thread.

It would sometimes be still nice to have that button for other peoples posts ;D

NiteHackr

Why did I delete my posts?

Because I thought I was wrong? Nope.

Because I thought I was losing? Nope.

Because I thought I was winning? Nope.

I am just too inflexible and not willing to change my views and that makes me a bad person for these discussions? Perhaps, but that would mean you are flexible and willing to change your views, and I have seen no evidence from anyone that evolutionists have been swayed and will switch over to Christianity in the 29 or so years I have discussed my beliefs with people. Either we agree to disagree or insults, jokes and the like are thrown around (like in here).

You see no reason for me to delete my posts therefore I am being childish. Sounds to me you're the one being childish. I deleted my posts so they can no longer be quoted and people can start to leave me out of this discussion. I no longer wish to take part, arguing my beliefs with atheists is not something I enjoy. Anyone who claims that if I had just explained the reasons for my beliefs more and provided more evidence in the existence of God that they would have been satisfied with that is just plain lieing. Nothing I say about God will be considered sufficient evidence to an atheist who has made up their minds that God does not exist, and to be fair, nothing any evolutionist/atheist says will be enough for me either. So it's pointless for me to continue. Most of you are probably young and fairly new to this, I am 46 years old and have argued my beliefs in the past, as I said, over 29 years and seen it all before and know the result.

I DO like to come back and check out what people are saying just out of curiosity, but when I come back and constantly see my name and people still quoting my posts arguing with me after I clearly stated I'm no longer interested, well, that is when I must delete the posts so they can no longer be quoted. I think that's a good reason. I know some won't, but then they're the ones who wish to constantly attack me and my beliefs so there's no surprise there, but this post should end any conjecture as to why I did it.

Have a good one.

SiegeLord
Vanneto said:

Doesn't matter much, I don't care about evidence and science... I believe.

There are two kinds of beliefs. Rational beliefs, that can change in light of new evidence, and irrational beliefs that don't change in light of new evidence. It is insulting to equate the belief in the supernatural with the belief in scientific theories.

Vanneto
SiegeLord

A God I can believe in 8-).

23yrold3yrold
SiegeLord said:

There are two kinds of beliefs. Rational beliefs, that can change in light of new evidence, and irrational beliefs that don't change in light of new evidence. It is insulting to equate the belief in the supernatural with the belief in scientific theories.

News flash: humans aren't logical, even if they think they are. "Rational belief" is practically an oxymoron.

(this has nothing to do with science vs. religion btw; this is my therapy training talking)

SiegeLord

Rational belief is a mathematical concept. I will in principle agree that humans are incapable of precisely matching it, but if they try, they certainly could. On subjects that are less controversial than God/Evolution, humans are pretty darn rational.

GameCreator

Has anyone ever tested people who claim to be able to talk to God? It doesn't seem hard. Get a large enough group and have them all individually talk to God and ask Him what to do about some world events. Then get their answers and see if they match.

Matthew Leverton

The ones that contradict what I was told weren't true believers.

Chris Katko

In before the lock!

23yrold3yrold

Has anyone ever tested people who claim to be able to talk to God? It doesn't seem hard.

Two seconds of thought will tell you this won't work. How do you "test" someone who knows everything you're doing?

That paper sounds kind of hollow to me, though to its credit it says the theories are very controversial. They're nice ideas, but they're trying to explain behavior that's long since been explained, documented, and practically demonstrated as not being rational at all. Grats on writing a paper I guess?

NiteHackr

I have to admit, that revision feature is pretty sweet.

Derezo

Has anyone ever tested people who claim to be able to talk to God?

They're talking to themselves. I don't think that means they aren't talking to God (what is that again?), but it does mean that there's nothing special about it.

Everyone is capable of meditation, and through meditation one can have complex revelations pop into their awareness as they clear away the incessant chatter in their skulls. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Aboriginal Religions, etc, all have numerous meditations. Some methods are more effective than others, and I personally enjoy Vipassana. Meditation opens your mind to direct experience, and through that you are able to have a better understanding of yourself.

It's not the teachings of religion that bother me at all. It's the reasoning people attach to why the teachings should be followed, which creates authority in it. There are plenty of wonderful ideas in The Bible, but God isn't one of them.

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

Perhaps, but that would mean you are flexible and willing to change your views, and I have seen no evidence from anyone that evolutionists have been swayed and will switch over to Christianity in the 29 or so years I have discussed my beliefs with people.

Naturally you assume that the "evolutionists" are just being stubborn. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that your arguments are based on absolutely no evidence or logic/reasoning. :P Like so many Christians, you foolishly equate your closed mindedness to our critical thinking. They are not the same, I'm afraid. I would absolutely be willing to accept the existence of God if there were a shred of evidence or logic in it. There isn't as far as I can see. Your blatant disregard for testable and demonstrable science, however, proves that it isn't evidence keeping you from changing your views, but sheer ignorance. :-/

Neil Roy said:

I deleted my posts so they can no longer be quoted and people can start to leave me out of this discussion. I no longer wish to take part, arguing my beliefs with atheists is not something I enjoy.

You were a part of this discussion and the thread should reflect that. If you want to quit it now then stop reading the thread and replying to people. That's how you quit a thread. You don't delete the contents that have already been posted. It's very poor netiquette to do so.

Neil Roy said:

Anyone who claims that if I had just explained the reasons for my beliefs more and provided more evidence in the existence of God that they would have been satisfied with that is just plain lieing. Nothing I say about God will be considered sufficient evidence to an atheist who has made up their minds that God does not exist,...

I think a lot of Christians assume that atheists are just as passionate about their beliefs as they are. In my experience, atheists don't really care. It's an intellectual debate for me. It just so happens that there is no evidence for God. That's why Christianity is based on faith, for fucks sakes! There is no evidence and anybody with critical thinking skills can see that. The people who rely on critical thinking to guide their life are therefore likely to disregard your beliefs as silly. It isn't about being right or being closed-minded. It's about being open to the truth, whatever that may be. There may well be a "creator", and it may well be the "Christian God". There may well be a flying spaghetti monster too. There's no reliable evidence for either, however, so the sensible response is to not believe in either of them.

Of course, there are people, such as yourself, that choose to believe in these things against logic or reason. That is your right, but just don't try to justify your beliefs with logic or reason. That's not why you believe and there's no logical defense for why you believe. It's a personal choice that you've made and you should leave it at that. It's normal for humans to question what they observe to better understand it. When we observe your arguments that don't make sense it is normal for us to question them. Don't discuss your beliefs with reasonable people if you don't want them to be questioned.

Neil Roy said:

...and to be fair, nothing any evolutionist/atheist says will be enough for me either.

I think you owe it to yourself to ask yourself why you feel that way.

Neil Roy said:

Most of you are probably young and fairly new to this, I am 46 years old and have argued my beliefs in the past, as I said, over 29 years and seen it all before and know the result.

You haven't seen it all before or you would not have been surprised to learn that evolution is not just a proposition, but a well understood fact[1]. :P

Neil Roy said:

...constantly see my name and people still quoting my posts arguing with me after I clearly stated I'm no longer interested, well, that is when I must delete the posts so they can no longer be quoted.

The responsibility to follow through in quitting is on you, not us. You're the one who chose to quit, not us, and we're welcome to continue discussing the things you said without you. If you don't like that arrangement then you probably shouldn't participate on public forums.

Neil Roy said:

I think that's a good reason. I know some won't, but then they're the ones who wish to constantly attack me and my beliefs so there's no surprise there, but this post should end any conjecture as to why I did it.

These are the criteria for a discussion:

{"name":"80957c72518411bd61070d1b9a026d61.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/80957c72518411bd61070d1b9a026d61.jpg","w":634,"h":882,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/80957c72518411bd61070d1b9a026d61"}80957c72518411bd61070d1b9a026d61.jpg

You've openly admitted to not being willing to change you mind no matter what anyone says. That opened you up to ridicule. Blatantly disregarding scientific evidence on the grounds that it refutes your own beliefs is not fair. The people "attacking" you were simply doing their part to point out the errors of your ways as you clearly don't see them yourself. It is funny to have somebody arguing with science with blatantly wrong assertions. Just as funny as it would be for somebody to deny that <math>2 + 2 = 4</math>. I don't think anybody in this thread has or intends to have any beef with you. Some of us might not think highly of your beliefs, but that doesn't mean we can't still respect you. This is just a friendly discussion that you refused to play fair in. :P

References

  1. Again, refer to Wikipedia for what is meant in science when a theory is said to be factual.
SiegeLord

They're nice ideas, but they're trying to explain behavior that's long since been explained, documented, and practically demonstrated as not being rational at all.

They are nice ideas supported by evidence and theory. Where are your explanations, documentation and practical demonstrations?

23yrold3yrold
SiegeLord said:

They are nice ideas supported by evidence and theory. Where are your explanations, documentation and practical demonstrations?

I have a shelf full of books that agree with me and a near 100% success rate with my clients (not that I practice full-time, but still). There's a reason these sorts of papers get labeled as "academic"; theories look good on paper but they're impractical, unrealistic, and not terribly useful.

I reiterate; nice ideas, but I'm sticking with what gets real-world results. And part of that is that humans are not logical or rational, as much as humans who think they are they to make it look that way. My work relies on that fact. It's probably not very scientific, but that only matters to the scientists. I'm a results kinda guy.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Derezo said:

How does anything I said relate with the concepts of god or pseudoscience?

You're just pushing the same problem back into time, with the "problem" as I understand it being how did we get here?

I have a shelf full of books that agree with me and a near 100% success rate with my clients

My personal experience with prayer says it's ineffective.

23yrold3yrold

My personal experience with prayer says it's ineffective.

Your personal experience would be, now wouldn't it? ::) There's a book that'll help explain why ... but we both know you're just trying desperately to make a point. Troll harder.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Logic fail.

[EDIT]

The prayer part came before the atheism part ::)

23yrold3yrold

I agree completely.

The prayer part came before the atheism part ::)

... and? How is this important?

GameCreator

Two seconds of thought will tell you this won't work. How do you "test" someone who knows everything you're doing?

Are you saying God would intentionally sabotage the survey to hide from the public? Does it say in the bible that He does not allow Himself to be revealed?

Arthur Kalliokoski

Are you saying God would intentionally sabotage the survey to hide from the public? Does it say in the bible that He does not allow Himself to be revealed?

Of course he won't reveal himself! It wouldn't be a test then, would it? I don't know why he revealed himself to those people who've been dead lo these many years though.

[EDIT]

... and? How is this important?

I tried it, it doesn't work, therefore I don't believe it. How can you possibly expect otherwise? I don't believe those ads in my spam folder either, no matter how much they claim to tell the truth.

Actually, I've read a couple scholarly books on religion, and can't see how the authors could possibly believe what they're writing about could be true. Maybe the Pope and all those cardinals are the trolls.

23yrold3yrold

Are you saying God would intentionally sabotage the survey to hide from the public? Does it say in the bible that He does not allow Himself to be revealed?

Since when has "the public" given a crap about the results of a scientific study, exactly? :) Let's pretend the experiment proved God existed. I'd bet good money the worldwide percentages of believers wouldn't change 1%.

SiegeLord

There's a reason these sorts of papers get labeled as "academic"; theories look good on paper but they're impractical, unrealistic, and not terribly useful. ... I'm a results kinda guy.

Wow. Well, no point in providing any scientific evidence to you, eh?

EDIT:

I'd bet good money the worldwide percentages of believers wouldn't change 1%.

Yep, definitely no point.

Arthur Kalliokoski

I'd bet good money the worldwide percentages of believers wouldn't change 1%.

There you go with that "lack of proof is good enough for me" again.

23yrold3yrold
SiegeLord said:

Wow. Well, no point in providing any scientific evidence to you, eh?

What can I say. I'm a results guy; I side with practice over theory. Sue me. Or get better results. 8-)

REVISION!!!!!!!!:

There you go with that "lack of proof is good enough for me" again.

Lack of proof of what? Human nature? If you've got some proof, answer the first question. If anything, all I've heard in this thread is bitching about how people ignore scientific facts. Is this not expected behavior?

Arthur Kalliokoski

This is like... like... arguing with a twenty three year old three year old! I really am done with this thread.

GameCreator

"Let's pretend the experiment proved God existed. I'd bet good money the worldwide percentages of believers wouldn't change 1%."
Maybe we're talking about a different definition of proof but you make it sound like it would be the same if God knocked on everyone's doors and said "Sup. I'm God." then pulled off some pretty mindbending stuff.

23yrold3yrold

Maybe we're talking about a different definition of proof but you make it sound like it would be the same if God knocked on everyone's doors and said "Sup. I'm God." then pulled off some pretty mindbending stuff.

The same as what? Neither that nor the science would sound like they would be terribly convincing to anyone.

GameCreator

I must have missed a joke somewhere. I guess I'm slow that way.

bamccaig

As I said, some (most?) Christians assume that atheists are closed minded. I would argue that this is due to their own refusal to even consider alternatives, and the refusal for atheists to accept Christian arguments as valid. Therefore, they assume nothing would change our minds, even if God were somehow proven to exist. IMO the assumption is very, very wrong.

As for the humans are not logical creatures thing, it's complete bullshit. The implication is that since humans are not perfectly logical creatures that they must not be logical at all. It's a completely flawed argument. Logical thinking has brought us a ton of technology and understanding that we lacked only a few hundred years ago. Being imperfect is a very poor excuse for not trying to understand things at all. Again:

{"name":"science.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/3\/53817aa38cffd1e7c7146397484748cb.jpg","w":500,"h":389,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/3\/53817aa38cffd1e7c7146397484748cb"}science.jpg

23yrold3yrold
bamccaig said:

As I said, some (most?) Christians assume that atheists are closed minded.

Everyone assumes everyone is closed minded.

{"name":"sheeple.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/5\/75d5173ae2ef56fa4b16d1367c572332.png","w":376,"h":401,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/5\/75d5173ae2ef56fa4b16d1367c572332"}sheeple.png

Quote:

Therefore, they assume nothing would change our minds, even if God were somehow proven to exist. IMO the assumption is very, very wrong.

If you're referring to my comments, I never once specified atheists ... or which God ... technically, my still-open question wasn't even religion-specific ...

Quote:

As for the humans are not logical creatures thing, it's complete bullshit.

Cool story, bro.

james_lohr
Dizzy Egg said:

I'm just (maybe dangerously) curious about how people feel about these discoveries. i.e, we are made from stardust...the Universe is billions of billions of years old...does it shake yer faith?

Atheist, Christian, Agnostic or whatever, you'd have to be distinctly unimaginative to be incapable of thinking up a marriage between the two.

bamccaig

Firstly, being closed-minded is not the same as being a "sheep" (i.e., brainless; a blind follower). Being closed-minded is refusing knowledge without reason, whereas being a sheep is following the group instead of making ones own decisions.

Secondly, I don't believe that most people are closed-minded about most things. On the contrary, many people are open to change their views on many things. For example, a computer programmer should easily be able to enlighten most anyone with an opinion on how software works. An automotive mechanic should easily be able to enlighten most anyone with an opinion on why their car doesn't work. Etcetera. You'd only really affect the people that care, of course. You can't expect somebody that doesn't care to absorb all of the shared wisdom, but that's indifference, not closed-mindedness.

If you're referring to my comments, I never once specified atheists ... or which God ... technically, my still-open question wasn't even religion-specific ...

Apparently I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Do me a favor and link to these "comments" so I see what point you're trying to make right now...

23yrold3yrold
bamccaig said:

On the contrary, many people are open to change their views on many things.

Only the most trivial. You've never heard the old saying that people stop learning by the age of 20 and spend the rest of their lives defending what they know? :) Old patterns are hard to drop, which is the reason I'm still in business ...

Quote:

Apparently I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore.

Okay, then you weren't referring to me. Never mind.

Dizzy Egg

Let's pretend the experiment proved God existed. I'd bet good money the worldwide percentages of believers wouldn't change 1%.

Hmmm...if it was 'proven'........'proved'..........no, 'proven' (went all 'Picollo' there for a sec) I would change my belief........so I guess I'm Agnostic and not Atheist...huh, this thread was worth starting, I learned something about myself.

By the by 23, and Neil too (and others too!) I really didn't start this thread very well, or how I had intended; what I should have asked is, does your understanding and structure of your faith change in response to scientific discovery/new understanding of our being, etc?

If, as 23 said very early on, there is no link at all between [my understanding of] science vs [my understanding of] religion then please, disregard my OP and give me time to learn more.......much more.

However this whole thing turns out, please do accept that I don't question your beliefs or faith and am open to accepting I'm wrong about what I believe to be true (which states: there is no God, Evolution IS happening and the Universe is one big expanding space that started....well, if I knew that... :o ), and am open to accept as my truth what you believe to be the truth, if as you say it could ever be proved (not saying that you WANT me to believe what you believe, just emphasising that I'm open to all paths).

In a way, I like to think everyone here would believe what is freaking me out (the reason for all this 'debating' in the first place!) was true, IF it could be.....proved.

I don't know why I believe WHAT I believe to be true, and at the same time need you to PROVE to me what YOU believe to be true in order for me to accept it; maybe someone more intelligent than myself (a few of you here I know!) could explain that phenomenon to me!

Atheist, Christian, Agnostic or whatever, you'd have to be distinctly unimaginative to be incapable of thinking up a marriage between the two.

Unless I've severely misunderstood this; your hinting at me having no imagination? I can happily, nay ecstatically defend myself on this being a falsehood, with a whole range of media, text and spoken word. Really, imagination and creativity is all I have...really! :P
:-/

Karadoc ~~

Since when has "the public" given a crap about the results of a scientific study, exactly? Let's pretend the experiment proved God existed. I'd bet good money the worldwide percentages of believers wouldn't change 1%.

I disagree. The public does care about scientific studies. Some studies are difficult to understand and are thus misinterpreted or ignored, but in the public are certainly listening. Most people don't believe that the earth is flat, for example. I'm sure a proof of God would make a huge change in the percentage of believers. Maybe not immediately, but it would be huge.

23yrold3yrold

Most people don't believe that the earth is flat, for example.

This is a long-standing thing that they're taught when they're children and has nothing to do with science as far as the child is concerned. They just believe it because a grown-up told them (like anything else). Hell, to this day I still don't have scientific proof the Earth is round. ;D I believe it, but that has nothing to do with science.

Evert

Everyone assumes everyone is closed minded.

Nice generalisation there.
I for one do not assume that, so there. Not everyone assumes everyone else is close minded.

23yrold3yrold
Quote:

Nice generalization there.

What can I say? It was an improvement on his.

Dizzy Egg

This all started when in a previous thread (I don't know how to link a previous thread) I made the announcement that I had discovered, thanks to BBC1 (UK) and Brian Cox (Dude) a lot more than I had previously known about my being.

After that thread (again, I don't know how to link a previous thread) I shared a song that I completed (again....thread....previous....link.....nope, nothing) due to that thread (that I don't know how to link).

This thread is far too complex and above me to ever allow me to create a song from it.




Luckily, part I of the song (part II) that was shared (I don't know how to link to it) is already written (I know how to link to it, Part I) and had already evolved (in 2010, check the YouTube posted date) and if this isn't the post to lock all posts on this thread then I don't know what to do.

Yes, God (ML) gave you the power, and yes, I edited this post. I'm tired.

axilmar

Why do we want to persuade others that what we believe is true, and what they believe is not? we can't prove what we believe anyway.

Dizzy Egg

Prove it.

SiegeLord
axilmar said:

Why do we want to persuade others that what we believe is true, and what they believe is not? we can't prove what we believe anyway.

Scientists can and do that every day. You just have to realise that proving something merely involves providing overwhelming evidence for it.

NiteHackr

I couldn't help myself. ;D
The Flat Earth Society

J-Gamer

More than half of the site is under construction... and the first argument is completely nonsense. If this were true, where would all the sattelites be orbiting/taking pictures from?

EDIT: As for breaking the first argument: They say light is a wave, and because of that, it has to travel trough something so the "ether" must exist. Light is an electromagnetic wave which can easily travel trough a vacuum like space.

axilmar
SiegeLord said:

Scientists can and do that every day.

Proving part* of science does not prove or disprove the nature of our existence.

Quote:

You just have to realise that proving something merely involves providing overwhelming evidence for it.

They just disprove religions. They don't prove that nothing exists beyond this spacetime.

For example, we can live in a simulation**.

*according to Gödel, no science can be proven 100%.

**evidence from the realm of the quantum mechanics point towards the universe being like 3d game renderer: just like a 3d game rendered clips the non-visible polygons, so does reality: a particle does not manifest itself as a solid object until it is observed***.

***i.e. until the need to go from the quantum level to the macro level.

SiegeLord
axilmar said:

Proving part* of science does not prove or disprove the nature of our existence.
*according to Gödel [en.wikipedia.org], no science can be proven 100%.

How is that relevant? You get very useful theories well before you are 100% sure of their correctness. You're missing the point of science: find hypotheses which fit the observed data the best. Just because multiple hypotheses fit the data equally well doesn't mean they are equally favorable or that there is no objective way to choose between them. Bayes theorem, or it's popular corollary of Occam's razor specifies which theory is best if they both fit the data equally well.

Get this idea of proving something 100% out of your head. You cannot prove things in the real world, every statement made about the real world has a non-zero (even if infinitesimally small) probability of being false. It also has the same guarantee about being true, even the most unlikely things might be true (but they are unlikely to be true).

But above all, just because two theories are not 100% proven, doesn't mean that they are on equal standing and are equally likely. That is not the case mathematically, and it is not how science has advanced historically.

Johan Halmén
Dizzy Egg said:

Hmmm...if it was 'proven'........'proved'..........no, 'proven' (went all 'Picollo' there for a sec) I would change my belief........so I guess I'm Agnostic and not Atheist...huh, this thread was worth starting, I learned something about myself.

If it was proven, I'd stop believing in Him. I'd say to Him "Sorry, but I thought you were someone else." But the existence of God will never be proven. By existence and proof I here mean the kind that atheists and scientists demand. It's a bit shame that many believers and many atheists think they're talking about the same thing. I mean, some believers think the existence of God can be proven in a way that atheists would accept. Those believers might not understand the philosophical problem in trying to define existence itself. We have lots of people, who have lost their faith at some point, when they have gained more knowledge of the scientific nature of the universe. And we have people, who haven't lost their faith, while remaining on an "uneducated" level. And we have people, who have never lost their faith, even though they have accomplished a deep knowledge of science. All Christians form a very heterogeneous group of varyinf beliefs. And despite lots of fights between these different beliefs, Christians hope to stick together. I think believing in creationism, Darwin or ID is not what defines whether you are a good or bad Christian or a Christian at all. Though that is for some Christians a crucial point, as well as for some atheists, too.

Sirocco

I had faith that this thread would have been locked by now.

NiteHackr

Why lock it, I'm curious how long these guys can keep arguing for. ;)

type568

The thread is damn fast growing, and is already pretty damn long.. Could anyone gimme a hint what are they arguing about?

J-Gamer

I think believing in creationism, Darwin or ID is not what defines whether you are a good or bad Christian or a Christian at all. Though that is for some Christians a crucial point, as well as for some atheists, too.

This sums the discussion. There are a few people trying to explain the science of evolution etc. to others who are ignorant of the evidence and don't want to change what they think.
It's also true in the other direction.

Idealius

Idealius said:
How smart you are is inversely proportional to how religious you would enjoy being, however ignorance is bliss, and the only thing to be sure of is irony. So, think long and hard about your choices and how you envision your life to be day-to-day.

[quote]Does this mean that people with absolutely no interest in being religious are infinitely smart? That doesn't seem quite right. Actually, maybe you're just trying to be funny or something, but I think what you said was pretty rude and unpleasant.[/quote]

Wow, why so defensive? Why the automatic assumption having no interest in being religious equates to being infinitely smart? You are wrong for trying to point that out.

Think about the meaning of your posts before you post. Ok, sir?

Edgar Reynaldo
Idealius said:

Think about the meaning of your posts before you post. Ok, sir?

Think about the meaning of your own posts first.

Idealius said:

How smart you are is inversely proportional to how religious you would enjoy being,

So you are saying that if you 'enjoy' being religious then you are dumb, and if you don't 'enjoy' religion then you are smart.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

Vanneto

Hey, if you believe in Snow White or Red Riding Hood they lock you up in an asylum. Go figure. :P

Tobias Dammers
Neil Roy said:

Why lock it, I'm curious how long these guys can keep arguing for.

There is nothing to argue, at least not from the Atheist side of things. It goes something like this:
Theist: "God exists."
Atheist: "Please define God and provide evidence."
Theist: (various Bible quotes, personal feelings and other non-evidence)
Atheist: "That's not evidence."
Theist: "Is too. And you didn't provide any evidence either."
Atheist: "It is not, and I don't have to. I'm not postulating anything."

On the Creationist vs. Evolutionist front, it goes like this:
Evolutionist: "The variety of life forms has been caused by evolutionary mechanisms over the past few billion years, and it's still happening."
Creationist: "The variety of life forms was designed by an undefined intelligent creator."
Evolutionist: "I have evidence: carbon analysis of fossils clearly shows that species become extinct, and new ones appear all the time; we have replicated the first biochemical steps toward life in a lab situation; we understand genetics to the point where we can actively manipulate genes to produces mutations, and we know that random mutations happen all the time; we can observe how differences in physical traits alter an individual's chances of reproduction; the entire evolutionist explanation is free of internal contradictions."
Creationist: "I don't believe you. I need more evidence."

In other words:

  • The God hypothesis lacks evidence, and until such evidence is provided, I'll reject the hypothesis.

  • The Creationist hypothesis lacks evidence, and has internal contradictions (e.g., how come we can find plenty dinosaur fossils much much older than the oldest human remains, with no overlap whatsoever?); it also suffers from the unsupported, ill-defined creator concept (where did he come from in the first place? Why did he design the Universe? Where is he now?)

  • The Evolution hypothesis comes with plenty of evidence, it is free of internal contradictions, and it explains the variety in Earth's life forms with a minimum of unexplained assumptions. Until something comes along that is at least equally evident, equally free of contradictions, equally powerful in explaining the variety, and uses less unexplained assumptions, I'll stick with it.

So you are saying that if you 'enjoy' being religious then you are dumb, and if you don't 'enjoy' religion then you are smart. This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

This, you got right. Intelligence and religiousness aren't necessarily connected. However, there is a big difference between not being religious out of carelessness or lack of desire, and not being religious as a result of extensive soul-searching.

Edgar Reynaldo

I love the fact that Atheists say there's no proof God exists. I have in my hand 1914 pages of His Word. His Word is proof of his existence just as surely as my word in this forum is proof of my existence.

Feel free to argue that man wrote the Bible and not God through man, but if you've read enough of the Bible you can see that it could only have been written through divine inspiration.

Psalm 22, written by David, foretells the crucifixion of Jesus, that they would pierce his hands and feet, and that they would gamble for Jesus's clothing. It was written long before Jesus was born. Jesus on the cross quotes the opening verse of Psalm 22 to bring attention to this fact :

Matthew 27:46 said:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

Now you can go about saying the authors wrote it that way to make it seem like Psalm 22 was a prophecy, but that's really a lame excuse.

type568

I love the fact that Atheists say there's no proof God exists. I have in my hand 1914 pages of His Word. His Word is proof of his existence just as surely as my word in this forum is proof of my existence.

If you're serious it's sad. Really. And I do not consider myself an atheist.

Edgar Reynaldo

What's sad is that some people can't accept the truth when it's staring them in the face. :(

Vanneto

^^

Theist: (various Bible quotes, personal feelings and other non-evidence)

Spot on. You think Tobias is a prophet? :o:o

Edgar Reynaldo

Hyprocrites.

You want us to prove that God exists without using the evidence He provided us.

So prove evolution is real without any scientific evidence then. If you're truly arguing on the same playing field.

Vanneto

Its a tricky situation, if we let you use the Bible as proof, then where do you draw the line? If the Bible is proof of Gods existence, then who are you to say that the Koran is not proof of Allah's?

If you believe that the Bible is proof of His existence thats fine and dandy, but don't write about it here expecting anyone to take you seriously. Its a book written by man that got out of control.

Want modern day proof? Look at what L. Ron Hubbard did. The people that are in the Church of Scientology think much like you do, they just have a different set of beliefs. Now don't say they are being brainwashed because you would be digging yourself a very deep hole.

EDIT:
But quite frankly, don't bother replying, it makes no sense. If you think the Bible is proof of God existence, I think you are a complete nutjob. If I had a saying, I'd institutionalize people like you.

On the other hand you probably think I'm an asshole/idiot/jerk. But thats fine. This is the Internetz. ;)

William Labbett

oh come all ye faithful

Vanneto

And I do hope people don't carry these kinds of things to the other forums on a.cc. Sure, I may call you a nutjob regarding religion, but I think most of you are fantastic people.

I have a friend that is deeply religious. Sure I think he is a nutjob (I tell him regularly). But we both don't take each other very seriously because, like I said, such debates are useless and never lead anywhere.

So this is it from me in this thread. Have fun!

type568

What's sad is that some people can't accept the truth when it's staring them in the face.

I was raised in quite a religious family. I see no reason to be sure bible wasn't written by wise people. Could you explain why you think it wasn't? I'm fine with whatever thing it is, just I can't see any evidence for either statement.

Striker

Edgar, maybe you as bible expert can answer me one question i am looking for an answer since a long time:

You know in the story where Jesus was born there came three kings from orient, Kaspar, Melchior and Balthasar. They came because of the star, which was an astrological sign to them. So, if in the most important point of the most important christian story astrology has such an important role, how can it be christians don't believe in astrology?

Edgar Reynaldo
Vanneto said:

If the Bible is proof of Gods existence, then who are you to say that the Koran is not proof of Allah's?

Allah may well exist, but I have massive doubts that he is God. More likely a fallen angel pretending to be holy. Satan himself is slated to come to Earth in the disguise of Jesus Christ, and many will be deceived by him.

Vanneto said:

If you believe that the Bible is proof of His existence thats fine and dandy, but don't write about it here expecting anyone to take you seriously. Its a book written by man that got out of control.

If it was strictly written by man, then how does it tie together so well? Was there some kind of guide that all the authors of the Bible followed so that it all ties together?

How do you explain Psalm 22 detailing the activities of the crucifixion thousands of years before it took place? Was it a script they all followed? Or is it more likely that God knows the future before it takes place and inspired David to write the 22nd psalm in the first place.

Vanneto said:

Want modern day proof? Look at what L. Ron Hubbard did. The people that are in the Church of Scientology think much like you do, they just have a different set of beliefs.

I doubt very much that my thinking is like those in the church of scientology.

Vanneto said:

Now don't say they are being brainwashed because you would be digging yourself a very deep hole.

They must be brainwashed, why else would they pay exorbitant amounts of money to get to the 'next level' of scientology and receive 'secret teachings'. The whole thing is a giant extortion racket.

type568 said:

I see no reason to be sure bible wasn't written by wise people. Could you explain why you think it wasn't?

How else do you explain the 22nd psalm coming true with precise detail thousands of years after the fact? How do you explain Jesus rising from the dead and all of the other miracles He (and his disciples) performed?

Vanneto

First point:
You do realize they probably think the same way of your religion right? But you are right and they are wrong. I get it.

Second point:
It wasn't written all at once. It was edited heavily by the Church. But you are right and I'm am wrong and what I say is not true. I get it.

Third point:
They believe just like you believe. Telling them little grey men don't exist is like telling you God doesn't exist. But you are right and I am wrong. I get it.

Fourth point:
Not to them. Saying its a racket is basically insulting their religion. But why not? You are right and they are wrong. I get it.

Seriously I do get it and you are truly right. I really don't want to be involved in this so why not end this by me saying I agree with you completely. :)

type568

How else do you explain the 22nd psalm coming true with precise detail thousands of years after the fact?

Bad my memory is, and wiki is useless here. Which one is that?
I would assume however, it is as everything in the bible is is very clouded and blurred allowing multiple interpretations and being not specific, so that something may just eventually come true, while all the things that do not don't prove anything is wrong. The book IS very wise.

Quote:

How do you explain Jesus rising from the dead and all of the other miracles He (and his disciples) performed?

Not proven facts? It could be just so, yet having it's source of "mystic power" not from the Holy Bible "legend"?

OR, it is all quite true as written.. I don't mind if it's so.

Tobias Dammers

Hyprocrites.You want us to prove that God exists without using the evidence He provided us.So prove evolution is real without any scientific evidence then. If you're truly arguing on the same playing field.

If it's not scientific, then it is not ultimately evidence. If you want to argue on the same playing field, commit to basic logic, and make your way from there.

What you quote from the Bible is all fine and dandy, and it's fascinating, no doubt about that, but it doesn't prove anything except that someone wrote it all down. Doesn't mean it actually happened exactly like this. You know those novels where strange things happen? Exactly the same thing.

Edgar Reynaldo
Vanneto said:

But you are right and they are wrong. I get it.

I see where you're coming from, with so many religions all saying they are true but with conflicting ideas, not all of them can be true at the same time. I get it, you're skeptical, but read the Bible for yourself, and then tell me it's not true.

type568 said:

Bad my memory is, and wiki is useless here. Which one is that?

Psalm 22?

Striker said:

So, if in the most important point of the most important christian story astrology has such an important role, how can it be christians don't believe in astrology?

Well, I can't really answer that, except that most people have simply outgrown superstitions like astrology. The best answer I can give you from the Bible is here :

Genesis 1:14 said:

And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days, and years:

Mostly, they are just for a way to tell time.

Edit

If it's not scientific, then it is not ultimately evidence. If you want to argue on the same playing field, commit to basic logic, and make your way from there.

Unfortunately, until Christ returns, there's really not ever going to be any scientific evidence that will directly support the Bible. No one who wrote it is still alive to give modern day testimony to it's truth and archaeological evidence is slim to none. If you're not willing to even take a chance that the Bible is true, then there's really no point discussing it with you. So until you read the Bible and provide proof that what it says is false, I see little reason to continue discussing it with you.

Edit 2
I guess there's one last thing I could mention. One of Jesus's disciples Thomas wouldn't believe that Christ had resurrected from the dead unless he saw Jesus in person with the nail marks in His hand and the spear mark in His side.

John 20:27-29 said:

27 Then saith He to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side: and be not faithless, but believing."
28 And Thomas answered and said unto Him, "My Lord and my God."
29 Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

type568
Quote:

Psalm 22?

I found it in wiki, but it didn't give me any clue. I felt like worst wiki article ever.

Pretty sad you didn't get anything regarding the rest of my post.

23yrold3yrold

Wow, that was a big spurt of activity.

I do think that this is a lot more subjective that the clean little nutshell everyone tries to pack it into. I was an atheist for much longer than not, and I believed in Evolution much longer than not. I ultimately ended up changing my mind on both counts. See? Atheists can learn. ;) /sarcastic troll

SiegeLord

If you're not willing to even take a chance that the Bible is true, then there's really no point discussing it with you.

Oh, I am willing to take a chance. A infinitesimally small chance.

Quote:

So until you read the Bible and provide proof that what it says is false, I see little reason to continue discussing it with you.

There is no need to prove something false to not believe in it (from a scientist's point of view, refer to a post of mine from a few pages ago). There is an infinite number of scientific theories that explain the world, yet only a few are seriously entertained. We already have a whole array of scientific theories to explain everything (with the minor exception of the Big Bang, perhaps) in non-supernatural terms. The God hypothesis is unnecessary, and is therefore unlikely.

Again, let me reiterate that it is impossible to prove things 100% in the real world, but it is possible to assign probabilities to various hypotheses. The God hypothesis, when placed on an equal ground with all other hypotheses is simply untenable.

NiteHackr

If you're atheist, ignore this post.

Not trying to get in on this discussion again, but I wish to give some advice to fellow Christians.

The bible gives some good advice when it comes to arguing/discussing your beliefs.

My favourite verse that seems to apply here is:

"Do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." - Mathew 7:6

This is very true as I have found out.

Also, there are verses in the bible that indicate that unless God opens someone's mind so that they can understand the truth, nothing you can say to them will convince them and it is pointless. God has to open your mind so you understand, it's a rare thing and only a few have God actually chosen and opened their minds so that they can grasp the truth.

All you'll get out of them if their minds haven't been opened (closed minded) is jokes, mocking, endless arguments and as Mathew 7:6 states, it will "tear you to pieces" spiritually.

It's difficult not to respond and their comments are usually crafted to appeal to your ego or otherwise egg you on, after all, if you don't reply to them, you have as good as admitted defeat and that must mean they were just too smart for you etc... etc... I have heard it all before.

Just be careful.

bamccaig
decepto

So until you read the Bible and provide proof that what it says is false...

The burden of proof always lies with the party making a claim.

Thomas Fjellstrom

It also helps that its just a book, written by man. Now maybe if god came and gave me a book he wrote, that would be something. As it is we have a nice collection of morality tales to read.

Tobias Dammers

Unfortunately, until Christ returns, there's really not ever going to be any scientific evidence that will directly support the Bible.

Oh, but the Bible does exist. No doubt in that - I can walk into the next best bookstore and verify it today (or rather, tomorrow, because today being Sunday, it's probably going to be closed). The thing I'm having doubts about are your claims that it is the word of God, and that everything in it is true. From where I stand, there's a much simpler explanation, namely that people made it up and wrote it down. I can easily verify that people make things up all the time, and I can just as easily verify that it is indeed possible to write them down, regardless of whether they are true or not.
Now if there were other sources, independent from the Bible, and from somewhat reliable and verified authors, to support its stories, then we could dive into a history discussion to carve out what actually happened.

Quote:

No one who wrote it is still alive to give modern day testimony to it's truth and archaeological evidence is slim to none.

Now you're contradicting yourself. If God exists, and He wrote the Bible, then He'd be able to provide evidence whenever He wanted to.

If, however, you're talking about the persons who physically wrote down the first versions of the various books; well, for some of them (especially the Evangelists), there is more or less substantial material to attribute the texts, at least some of them; we can certainly find a rough time frame for each of them. One thing that is particularly interesting is that none of the Evangelists could possibly have known Jesus themselves; they wrote their texts at least a hundred years after his death. It is also quite possible that the authors knew each others' works, which means the fact that there are parallels between them is hardly surprising.

Quote:

If you're not willing to even take a chance that the Bible is true, then there's really no point discussing it with you.

Sorry, can't do that. The Bible isn't the only book in the world that claims to have to absolute truth without backing it with evidence. If I'd consider the Bible, I'd also have to consider all the other books, and that would put me in a fairly dire situation.

Quote:

So until you read the Bible and provide proof that what it says is false, I see little reason to continue discussing it with you.

I'll say it again: You made the claim, so it's your burden of proof. Simple as that. Also, why is it that people like you never seem to understand that one can read the Bible thoroughly and still reject its claims?

J-Gamer

^This

Idealius

If religion and intelligence aren't connected how come atheists are more likely to have read the entire bible and be more able to answer bible trivia?

This goes back to my original post saying that irony is the only thing one can be sure of, which in itself, gives more reason for someone to believe in the unreasonable notion a fake deity is real.

You can say that scientific evidence proves God does not exist. But, if you look at star athletes more of them are religious than atheist, which is pretty scientific in itself. Irony.

Some would say this is the placebo effect. However, if you look at the word placebo you find it is weakly defined. Which takes us back to irony.

To really get to the crux of the issue one must argue in a way that avoids things devolving into semantics. Ironically, that is impossible.

All you have to do is define "intelligence" and "religion" in the most basic cores of their meanings in regards to particles and gravity. Ironically, if I spell it out for you, you'll never get it.

Now, that should sufficiently explain what I mean when I say the more intelligent one is, the less they would enjoy being religious.

Of course you can guess that I don't think it applies in all cases, because the universe is ironic, so things can be this that both or neither when speaking of nothing anything and everything. :)

In fact irony is such that if I'm right about all of this, then you are less likely to read it and vice versa. Irony is a self-conscious beast.;)

Edgar Reynaldo

From where I stand, there's a much simpler explanation, namely that people made it up and wrote it down. I can easily verify that people make things up all the time

But you're not willing to verify that the Bible is made up, which is your assertion, which leaves the burden of proof on you.

Tobias Dammers said:

Now you're contradicting yourself. If God exists, and He wrote the Bible, then He'd be able to provide evidence whenever He wanted to.

God does exist, He wrote the Bible, and if He wanted to He could certainly provide evidence of that. But why should he repeat himself to everyone over and over when His Word is already collected in the Bible?

RTFM, noobs.

Tobias Dammers said:

Sorry, can't do that. The Bible isn't the only book in the world that claims to have to absolute truth without backing it with evidence. If I'd consider the Bible, I'd also have to consider all the other books, and that would put me in a fairly dire situation.

So instead of considering any spiritual book as truth, you condemn them all to being lies for your own convenience. How mature of you.

Tobias Dammers said:

I'll say it again: You made the claim, so it's your burden of proof. Simple as that.

You are the one making the claim it is false, so the burden of proof is on you. Simple as that.

The Bible proves itself to be true more and more every time I read it, and don't think that I accept it as true as some sort of axiom, because I don't.

Tobias Dammers said:

Also, why is it that people like you never seem to understand that one can read the Bible thoroughly and still reject its claims?

Are you putting yourself forward as one who has read the Bible thoroughly then? On what basis do you reject it's claims, and which ones?

Matthew Leverton

they wrote their texts at least a hundred years after his death.

So you believe in the miraculous then? Jesus must have died about 30 years before he was born if your statement is correct, considering The Gospel of Mark was written around 70 A.D. and Jesus died around year 30.

The Gospel according to Matthew was (according to scholars, of course, how would I know?) a compilation of his own writings from his own first hand experiences.

The Gospel according to John was written by the year 90. Like the book of Matthew, many scholars doubt he actually wrote the final version, but again it was a collection of stories he had told or written previously.

The Apostle Paul lived in the first century, and much of the New Testament is a collection of letters he personally wrote to churches. Unless you believe Paul was miraculously writing letters after his death, that shoots holes in your theory.

So are you just trying to propagate a lie that you and others have been called out here many times before? In that case, is it malice or ignorance on your part?

Obviously I don't know without doubt who wrote the New Testament and when it was written, but I have no reason to doubt the tradition and claims of the majority of scholars over the ages. But I do know there's no way you can say with certainty that they were written "100 years after Jesus' death." Why stop there? Why not make it 500 years?

I think it shows a great deal of ignorance on your part to have to resort to spreading lies, Fox News style, in your fight against Christianity. There are so many valid ways to poke holes at common doctrines and beliefs of Christians, that you don't have to resort to such a thing.

NiteHackr

Just to back up Matthew, many of the letters were copies of the originals written by churches to share with other churches (who wouldn't wish to share a letter you received from an apostle?!) and so they could very well be older than the apostles, but the way they were copied was very meticulous, more so than normal non-biblical texts that are accepted as fact without question (like the Roman historian Josephus who wrote about Christ, even though he didn't like Christians, which is even better evidence than hearing from someone that actually liked him).

Also archaeological evidence backs up the bible.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Quote:

He wrote the Bible

No, a bunch of people wrote the bible.

Edgar Reynaldo

Using the words God gave to them. Hence, He wrote the Bible.

SiegeLord

Using the words God gave to them. Hence, He wrote the Bible.

Nope. They did it themselves, without supernatural assistance.

Thomas Fjellstrom

So god just dictated it all to them? Why hasn't he done any more of that? You'd think by now we'd have a massive collection of scriptures. Or at least more tales of history, it seems though that the time line stopped at some point.

Matthew Leverton

Paul wrote this:

Quote:

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

That's kind of a contradiction. If the entire text there is God's word, then God is a liar. i.e., How could Paul, divinely inspired by God, possibly write that "the following is my opinion"? Clearly Paul is saying, "this isn't something Jesus specifically taught, but I believe it to be consistent with his teachings."

Paul goes on and says something to the effect of:

Quote:

In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is--and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

The concept of God literally speaking the entire Bible is a doctrine that, to me, is clearly a myth even by its own revelation.

And don't bother trying to justify Paul's language to me. I've heard all the arguments, and they are mostly just pathetic.

NiteHackr

The concept of God literally speaking the entire Bible is a doctrine that, to me, is clearly a myth even by its own revelation.

That's a good point. These men were very careful to state when they said something that was clearly their own opinion, even if it made sense and seemed to follow the spirit of what Jesus taught.

Edgar Reynaldo
SiegeLord said:

Nope. They did it themselves, without supernatural assistance.

Explain how David prophecied the manner of Christ's crucifixion in Psalm 22, which Jesus quoted on the cross as a reminder. David wrote Psalm 22 hundreds of years before Christ was even born. I'll tell you how - divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit of God, that's how.

So god just dictated it all to them? Why hasn't he done any more of that? You'd think by now we'd have a massive collection of scriptures.

Isn't 1914 pages enough for you? God's smart enough to know that there is already more there than most people can learn in a lifetime, but there's still something there for everyone.

If the entire text there is God's word, then God is a liar.

Yes there are some passages that are written solely from the mouth of man, but I still assert that the vast majority of the Bible was written by God. It's the same way with Allegro 4 - there were many contributors over the years, but the source code still says "Written by Shawn Hargreaves".

SiegeLord

Explain how David prophecied the manner of Christ's crucifixion in Psalm 22, which Jesus quoted on the cross as a reminder. David wrote Psalm 22 hundreds of years before Christ was even born. I'll tell you how - divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit of God, that's how.

People make nice predictions about the future that come true all the time.

EDIT: I just glanced around the internet, and it seems that Psalm 22 is not universally agreed upon as a correct prediction: the quality of prediction seems to depend on which translation you use. I'm not qualified to judge whether they are more or less right than you, but from where I stand, it's your word against theirs.

james_lohr

The Bible proves itself to be true more and more every time I read

Explain how David prophecied the manner of Christ's crucifixion in Psalm 22, which Jesus quoted on the cross as a reminder. David wrote Psalm 22 hundreds of years before Christ was even born. I'll tell you how - divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit of God, that's how.

Can't you see how delusional you sound? When presented with these types of arguments it's small wonder that some atheists are so antagonistic.

I am a Christian myself, and for me Christianity is the hope that my interpretation of God and the Bible has some truth in it, however slim that hope may be.

Since you're obviously very fond of taking the Bible literally, how about this one?

Matthew 17:20

Quote:

I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.

You clearly can't move mountains, so I claim that you have no faith, only delusion, and that you are in no position to argue that the Bible is the absolute word of God. You may argue that you hope that it is the absolute word of God, and your reasons for this hope - this is fine, but any more than this makes you look both silly and hypocritical.

Thomas Fjellstrom

Isn't 1914 pages enough for you? God's smart enough to know that there is already more there than most people can learn in a lifetime, but there's still something there for everyone

No it isn't enough. People, Society and Everything changes.

NiteHackr

Honestly, if you're looking for a scientific explanation of God, you'll be waiting a long time.

I feel that evidence of a creator is all around us and in fact, the bible states that come judgment day people like yourselves that don't believe in him and claim lack of evidence will be "without excuse". The bible actually states that proof of God's existence is all around us in what He created. So some of you may wish to rethink things carefully before you reject the possibility of a God, it's a dangerous corner to back yourself into.

As I have said before, there no way me or any other Christian in here will be able to convince you that God exists. If you TRULY wish to know, than try finding a private place, and pray to God about it, if you're honest and serious about knowing, it's very possible that He will open your mind and you will begin to understand. But not until then.

No amount of "evidence" will convince you otherwise to be honest and it's pointless to try.

As a matter of fact, if you read the beginning of 1 John, you will discover an amazing truth, that Jesus existed before his birth, that he was the very one who created us, the one that talked to Moses and wrote the 10 commandments. Remember, "God" is translated from the hebrew "Elohim" which is plural. Think of God almost like a family name. There is God the father, which no man has talked to (no, not even Moses) and God the Son (or in his pre-human state, the "Word" or "Logos") who Moses, Noah, Adam etc... all talked to and whom actually done all the creating. The fact is, God DID come to earth and talk to us, and He was put to death as a result. And the same would happen today.

This also explains the seeming contradiction where you read no man has talked to God, then you read about Moses talking to him. No man has talked to God the father.

My point being, He did come to earth as a man, they still didn't believe Him.

SiegeLord
Neil Roy said:

So some of you may wish to rethink things carefully before you reject the possibility of a God, it's a dangerous corner to back yourself into.

On the contrary, believing in God might be just as dangerous if for some reason it's the other God that actually exists: http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/606868/910636#target

Thomas Fjellstrom

I like that argument. That one where people claim that only those who believe in Jesus, and God make it into heaven. Even sinners. So long as you repent and believe, you get in. Now, if you've been a perfect citizen, but don't believe, you don't get in. Its a riot.

Neil Roy said:

This also explains the seeming contradiction where you read no man has talked to God, then you read about Moses talking to him. No man has talked to God the father.

That's a clever argument. Wonder how long it took them to come up with that one.

Fancy explanations like that shouldn't be necessary if a singular GOD wrote the Bible.

Striker

One thing Christians should understand: God is not their property. The christian church is an organization of people, made after their limited understanding, nothing more.

In other times and other countries there are other religions, and some of them are quite advanced over the christian. In the example before with the star of bethlehem, there were mentioned three kings from orient which obviously had advanced knowledge about astrology, because they came all the way to Jesus birthplace. They knew what happens only because of that star! Christians are far from having such a knowledge.

NiteHackr

I like that argument. That one where people claim that only those who believe in Jesus, and God make it into heaven. Even sinners. So long as you repent and believe, you get in. Now, if you've been a perfect citizen, but don't believe, you don't get in. Its a riot.

Actually the bible does state that people that never really had a chance to know about God or learn about Him, will be given a chance when he returns. It's not a second chance, but a first one.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Neil Roy said:

Actually the bible does state that people that never really had a chance to know about God or learn about Him, will be given a chance when he returns. It's not a second chance, but a first one.

So someone who has lived and died before he returns, is SOL?

NiteHackr

Fancy explanations like that shouldn't be necessary if a singular GOD wrote the Bible.

But God = "Elohim" which is more than one. Read Genesis where it states " we made man in our image" for example.

So someone who has lived and died before he returns, is SOL?

Not at all, there is a coming resurrection where they will be resurrected and given a chance to learn from Christ Himself.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Neil Roy said:

But God = "Elohim" which is more than one. Read Genesis where it states " we made man in our image" for example.

I thought the main religions were monotheist? aka: One God. Now you're telling me there's more than one God? Is one of their nick-names Zeus?

Quote:

Not at all, there is a coming resurrection where they will be resurrected and given a chance to learn from Christ Himself.

Wow. Is there enough room on earth for that?

decepto

Wow. Is there enough room on earth for that?

One word: Magic.

Edgar Reynaldo
SiegeLord said:

People make nice predictions about the future that come true all the time.

So it's just dumb luck that they pierced Christ's hands and feet and that the soldiers gambled for His clothing - exactly as Psalm 22 said would happen. Not only did one prediction come true, but two at the same time.

I am a Christian myself, and for me Christianity is the hope that my interpretation of God and the Bible has some truth in it, however slim that hope may be.

If you don't believe the Bible is the truth, then how can you call yourself a Christian to begin with? It's absurd.

James Lohr said:

Since you're obviously very fond of taking the Bible literally, how about this one?

Matthew 17:20 said:

I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.

You clearly can't move mountains, so I claim that you have no faith, only delusion, and that you are in no position to argue that the Bible is the absolute word of God. You may argue that you hope that it is the absolute word of God, and your reasons for this hope - this is fine, but any more than this makes you look both silly and hypocritical.

Maybe if I had enough faith, I could move mountains, I don't know. The point Jesus was making was that his disciples couldn't cast the demon out because they didn't believe that they could. It means that without faith, you are powerless. If you don't believe you can do something, then you'll never bother trying to do it, because it seems pointless to begin with, and so you automatically fail. Sometimes Jesus spoke in parables, was he using one there? I'm not sure. Would humans have been able to invent flight without faith? Or have gone into space without faith that they could? Most likely not.

If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then why do you bother reading it? For a good story?

NiteHackr

There is God the father, and his son, the Word. In John (I said 1 John, I was wrong, it's in the first book of John, not "1 John") you read:
1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
2) "The same was in the beginning with God."
3) "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

...

10) "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

and it goes on, but this shows that the one we know as Jesus, was known as "The Word" before he became flesh. He's the one that done all the creating, that talked to Moses. You can read in Genesis that there are more than one as I said. But there you have the names you wanted, God the Father, and his son the Word, now known as "Jesus Christ".

Wow. Is there enough room on earth for that?

Actually, I once heard of a study some man took and they figured out that everyone that has ever existed given a certain amount of land, could fit into San Francisco Harbour. I was surprised at this, and I would have to look it up to find it again, but... it's a big earth, the vast majority of it is uninhabited.

Thomas Fjellstrom

I think maybe you're just misinterpreting.

Neil Roy said:

and the Word was God

I think maybe that just means that if Jesus is "The Word", he is also "God". Not that theres two separate entities. Otherwise you get stuck not being a monotheistic religion, but that clearly hasn't been the view for a very long time.

Edgar Reynaldo

Think of it like this - there's one God, who appears in 3 different ways - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - all are God, but they manifest in different ways.

NiteHackr

I don't know about other people's view, and I don't wish to debate other people's beliefs, I'm just stating what I read and what I understand it to mean to me anyhow. Other opinions may vary. ;)

Evert

What can I say? It was an improvement on his.

Improvement? Hardly. But fair enough to point out that what you responded to was a generalisation as well. Doesn't make your argument stronger to counter a generalisation with another even more sweeping one though.

God does exist, He wrote the Bible, and if He wanted to He could certainly provide evidence of that. But why should he repeat himself to everyone over and over when His Word is already collected in the Bible?

That logic is circular and therefore invalid.
If you don't want or need logic, that doesn't matter to you. If you do, it does.

Quote:

You are the one making the claim it is false, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong.
I can claim there are leprechauns living beneath the kitchen sink. That does not make it so unless someone proves it to be false. The burden of proof is on me for making that claim.

Quote:

The Bible proves itself to be true more and more every time I read it, and don't think that I accept it as true as some sort of axiom, because I don't.

Good for you. Now, don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because you think it's true doesn't mean that anyone else who reads it must inevitably come to the same conclusion as you do.

Explain how David prophecied the manner of Christ's crucifixion in Psalm 22, which Jesus quoted on the cross as a reminder. David wrote Psalm 22 hundreds of years before Christ was even born. I'll tell you how - divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit of God, that's how.

When Julius Caesar was stabbed to death, he recognised one of the assasins as his friend and ally, Maruc Iunius Brutus. Dismayed, he called out "you too, my son?"
Or did he?
I'll give you another explanation: the account of Jesus' life was doctored so that it would fit the existing prophesies.

Neil Roy said:

like the Roman historian Josephus who wrote about Christ, even though he didn't like Christians, which is even better evidence than hearing from someone that actually liked him.

Josephus was a Jew, not a Roman.
What exactly Josephus wrote is apparently disputed, with the text possibly having undergone some editing by later (Christian) scribes. Either way - Josephus does not seem to say much other than indicate that there was a historical figure called Jesus, who was regarded by some as the Messiah. You cannot infer very much from that.

Quote:

Also archaeological evidence backs up the bible.

The truth of that statement very much depends on what you mean by "backs up".
There is no doubt that the Bible represents the oral traditions of the Jewish people, which include both their mythology and history. Some of it must very clearly recall historical events, but as with the account of the Trojan War in the Illias and the Odyssee, these are likely to have been distorted or enhanced in the telling and it's hard to tell historical fact from plain mythology (I won't say "fiction", because that's not the same thing).

NiteHackr
Evert said:

Josephus was a Jew, not a Roman.

You do realize that "Roman" isn't a race right? There were all sorts of races in the Roman empire, and some became Roman citizens, Josephus was a Roman General as well as a historian, he was also a Jew, yes. One of Christ's apostles was also a Roman citizen, I can't recall off hand who though.

Neil Black
Neil Roy said:

One of Christ's apostles was also a Roman citizen, I can't recall off hand who though.

Paul.

Evert said:

Either way - Josephus does not seem to say much other than indicate that there was a historical figure called Jesus, who was regarded by some as the Messiah.

Yeah, that's pretty much all he says. Which is great, because it helps me identify people who are just talking out of their butts about "proof" of the Bible. People who go on about how much Josephus supports the New Testament and Jesus clearly don't know what they're talking about.

james_lohr
Neil Roy said:

Actually, I once heard of a study some man took and they figured out that everyone that has ever existed given a certain amount of land, could fit into San Francisco Harbour. I was surprised at this, and I would have to look it up to find it again, but... it's a big earth, the vast majority of it is uninhabited.

You don't need to look it up, it's a trivial calculation. As is this one I just did: if liquidized, everyone on Earth could fit into a single 1km cubed vat.

Personally I think it says more about the degrees of a polynomial (n^2, n^3) than anything to do with the Earth's size.

If you don't believe the Bible is the truth, then how can you call yourself a Christian to begin with? It's absurd.

Have you read what the bible says you actually need to do to be considered a Christian? ;)

Quote:

The point Jesus was making was that his disciples couldn't cast the demon out because they didn't believe that they could.

No, this is your interpretation of what is written in the Bible. Was Jesus referring to a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, and therefore implying that no one has any faith? Or perhaps his meaning was derived from the fact that mustard seeds grow into the largest of all herbs, and therefore means a thriving faith? Does he literally mean to move mountains, or does he simply mean great deeds?

Every part of the bible is open to many different interpretations. Even its claims to be the word of God are open to interpretation. You are taking something totally arbitrary - your interpretation of the bible - and claiming that it is the word of God. This, quite frankly, is a display of arrogance and ignorance that serves only to push many intelligent people away from Christianity.

Evert
Neil Roy said:

You do realize that "Roman" isn't a race right?

No, it's a citizenship - and not everyone who lived in the Roman Empire was a Roman citizen.
Josephus apparently became a Roman citizen later, but he was most certainly, first and foremost, a Jew.

Quote:

Josephus was a Roman General as well as a historian,

Josephus was not a Roman general. He fought against the Romans, and later, after being captured and released, became a historian.

Quote:

One of Christ's apostles was also a Roman citizen,

So?

Thomas Fjellstrom

You don't need to look it up, it's a trivial calculation. As is this one I just did: if liquidized, everyone on Earth could fit into a single 1km cubed vat.

Now how much land would it take up if everyone who ever lived was resurrected, if say they were all standing up?

Evert

Now how much land would it take up if everyone who ever lived was resurrected, if say they were all standing up?

Probably about double at this point.
I don't remember whether we're already at the point where the number of people alive today is the same as (or larger than) the number of people who have ever lived, but it's close.

james_lohr

Now how much land would it take up if everyone who ever lived was resurrected, if say they were all standing up?

Well, off the top of my head I'd guess that the land area (footprint) of the cuboid vat large enough to contain every human that ever lived in liquidized form would be no more than 1.5km square. That's assuming that the total number of people ever to live is smaller than 4 times the current number of people alive which, given exponential growth, is likely to be generous if anything.

Edgar Reynaldo
Evert said:

I can claim there are leprechauns living beneath the kitchen sink. That does not make it so unless someone proves it to be false. The burden of proof is on me for making that claim.

I can claim it's false however, and then go look under your kitchen sink and see that there are none there. So by the same token you can claim the Bible wasn't written by God, go to the Bible, and prove me wrong then.

Evert said:

I'll give you another explanation: the account of Jesus' life was doctored so that it would fit the existing prophesies.

And where's your proof of that? What would be the motivation? Sounds like a lot of work for very little gain to me.

You want more proof of the truth of the Bible? Ever heard of B.C. and A.D.? - Before Christ, and Anno Domini (year of our Lord).

Have you read what the bible says you actually need to do to be considered a Christian?

Enlighten me.

James Lohr said:

Even its claims to be the word of God are open to interpretation.

Provide an example.

James Lohr said:

You are taking something totally arbitrary - your interpretation of the bible - and claiming that it is the word of God.

No, actually I haven't done that. My claim is that the Bible is the Word of God, and if you dispute that, don't bother calling yourself a Christian (Christ man).

SiegeLord

So it's just dumb luck that they pierced Christ's hands and feet and that the soldiers gambled for His clothing - exactly as Psalm 22 said would happen. Not only did one prediction come true, but two at the same time.

The piercing of the hands and feet is referenced by Christians as being a prophecy about Jesus’ crucifixion, where his hands and feet were pierced by nails. However, contrasting the two verses in the JPS and KJV give radically different results – the former states that the Psalmist’s hands and feet are mauled by dogs or lions. The latter states that the assembly of the wicked has pierced the Psalmist’s hands and feet. This is a translation issue, specifically over the word ari, or lion.

In Hebrew, the verse reads karah ari yad regal. Literally, mauled lion hands feet.

Evert said:

I don't remember whether we're already at the point where the number of people alive today is the same as (or larger than) the number of people who have ever lived, but it's close.

According to wikipedia, the total number of humans that ever lived is over 100 billion.

NiteHackr
Evert said:

Josephus was not a Roman general. He fought against the Romans, and later, after being captured and released, became a historian.

I guess the History channel is wrong then. I'll tell them to give you a phone call.

Evert

So by the same token you can claim the Bible wasn't written by God, go to the Bible, and prove me wrong then.

Ok then. God didn't write the Bible because he didn't exist.
Proof otherwise.

Quote:

And where's your proof of that?

Did I say there was? I offer it as an alternative explanation. You say the inescapable conclusion from the match of the prophecy is that the prophecy is true. This is clearly false, since there is an alternative explanation.

Quote:

What would be the motivation?

Surely you can work that one out for yourself?
I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with attracting followers.

Quote:

Sounds like a lot of work for very little gain to me.

I wouldn't say that. The church is fairly wealthy and influential, you know. Even more so in the past.

Quote:

You want more proof of the truth of the Bible?

"More"?
Either way, not really.

Quote:

Ever heard of B.C. and A.D.? - Before Christ, and Anno Domini (year of our Lord).

Discounting the fact that those terms stem from around the beginning of the Middle Ages and that they seem to have got the year of Jesus' birth wrong by a few years (which is actually impressively close), what's that supposed to show?
Muslims count years from the year in which Mohammed came to Medina, the Romans counted years ab urbe condita (but more commonly by referring to the names of the consuls) and the Hebrew calandar supposedly counts years since the creation of the Earth. In the tradional Chinese calendar the years (if they are counted at all) are counted from the time their calendar was established, some 4000 years ago.
Clearly people count the dates from some time that they deem significant to their culture. To the people who introduced the terms "BC" and "AD", that point in time was the birth of Jezus, which makes sense given the importance of Christianity at the time. But again, that proofs nothing.

EDIT

SiegeLord said:

According to wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org], the total number of humans that ever lived is over 100 billion.

Ok. Much larger than I'd have expected, but I guess it matters (a lot) when you start counting. The figure I quoted may be an estimate for the number of people who lived in historic times, which is obviously much smaller than the total number of people who have ever lived.

Neil Roy said:

I guess the History channel is wrong then. I'll tell them to give you a phone call.

Nah, just give them a link to Wikipedia.

james_lohr

My claim is that the Bible is the Word of God, and if you dispute that, don't bother calling yourself a Christian

Which interpretation of the bible? Clearly the English version is not, since it is a man's translation and interpretation of the Hebrew version. Do you mean the original Hebrew texts prior to any translation? Sorry, but these no longer exist.

The bible is mostly certainly not God's Word. The best we can hope is that it is in some way derived from him, and that some of the original wisdom and truth still remains.

Certainly there are some ideas and concepts that are well preserved; those that do not easily crumble after a few translations. These are the things you should take from the bible, and these are the things that should form the basis of an argument for its truth. If your belief in the bible is based upon the particulars of weakly correlating prophesies, then I strongly suggest that you reassess your Christianity (and preferably your education in general).

Quote:

I can claim it's false however, and then go look under your kitchen sink and see that there are none there. So by the same token you can claim the Bible wasn't written by God, go to the Bible, and prove me wrong then.

If you go look under the kitchen sink and find a piece of paper saying "leprechauns used to live here", do you then believe in leprechauns? Please, don't embarrass yourself.

NiteHackr

The bible hasn't "crumbled after a few translations" due to the reverence to preserving the original meaning that is given by the people translating it. And if you're in doubt, and you're serious about bible study, as I am, you should have a concordance as well. I own the King James version most people know about, I also own a more modern NIV (New International Version) which is written in more modern English with emphasis on what the original authors meant to say, which is a better way to approach it given the idioms in different languages.

But even then, with a concordance you can look up a verse, the word used in that verse, and what the original word was in that verse in Hebrew (old testament) or Greek (new testament) and then look up the original meaning of that word, there is a Hebrew and Greek dictionary contained in my concordance. I have Strong's Exhaustive Concordance myself. SO you see, your assumptions about the bible are all wrong. If you're serious about studying it, you CAN find out what the original text said and what the original meaning of the Greek or Hebrew words are, it's not difficult.

Karadoc ~~

I read a book once in which described a village of small people who lived in houses built into the sides of hills. These people lived pretty quiet and peaceful lifestyles mostly, but in this story a special man and his friends showed up at the door of one of the little people and they persuaded the (reluctant) little person to go on a big adventure. They ended up seeing trolls and orcs and all manner of other things, and they even witnessed the slaying of a dragon. Anyway, I later found out that this book was actually written by the little person himself! So although I thought it was just a fictional tale at first, now I know that the existence of this book, "There and back again", really does prove the existence of the hobbit named Bilbo, and Gandalf the wizard, and all their friends. Because the words of this book are the words of Bilbo himself. No one else could possibly come up with stories like that without having seen their adventure first hand. It's quite amazing really.

RickyLee

Now how much land would it take up if everyone who ever lived was resurrected, if say they were all standing up?

I actually don't believe in god but one would think that your resurrection wouldn't be your physical body but more of your "soul", whatever you want to think that would be. I would also imagine that even if your "soul" took up space you'd be able to live in the Y axis also :P

Talking about this seems so pointless though. It seems to be the cruelest joke in existence. The farther you reach the more questions you have. I don't believe in a god, but I also don't care to know how we really came about, personally. The one constant that seems to exist is that everything was meant to "die" at some point.

I think it's great there are scientist trying to solve this puzzle though. I also think it's fine that people believe in god. I do believe there is one right answer but I don't believe we should rub the either groups nose into it if/when that answer is found.

Neil Roy said:

The bible hasn't "crumbled after a few translations" due to the reverence to preserving the original meaning that is given by the people translating it.

But who is translating it and would they have anything to gain if it's translated in such a fashion?

Neil Black

You want more proof of the truth of the Bible? Ever heard of B.C. and A.D.? - Before Christ, and Anno Domini (year of our Lord).

I... I don't even know how to respond to that. Evert gave a great answer but... all I can do is boggle at the failure of rationality in this argument.

Do you mean the original Hebrew texts prior to any translation? Sorry, but these no longer exist.

We do have the Dead Sea Scrolls, though. They date from a few hundred years before Jesus (not sure of the exact date), and among other things they show that our current Old Testament texts are amazingly close to the texts they had over two thousand years ago. Only a few minor errors, nothing that effects any major doctrine.

Although personally, I'm having fun reading through all the non-canonical books from that period. :)

RickyLee said:

But who is translating it and would they have anything to gain if it's translated in such a fashion?

An issue that has come up in the past. My New Testament professor talked about certain passages in the King James Version, for example, that the translators made more sexist than the original language to support their own interpretations (although that professor [b]does[/b] seem to have a feminist streak in him which may bring his own bias into the picture).

This is why looking to the original language, or if you can't read the original language, looking to a number of different translations, can be very helpful.

RickyLee

This is why looking to the original language, or if you can't read the original language, looking to a number of different translations, can be very helpful.

I guess the idea was that even the "originals" were most likely to be translated to fit someone's agenda. It's not as if humans formed this idea after the book was written. For all we know (and I suspect) the original copy itself is nothing but propaganda.

Edgar Reynaldo
SiegeLord's quote said:

The piercing of the hands and feet is referenced by Christians as being a prophecy about Jesus’ crucifixion, where his hands and feet were pierced by nails. However, contrasting the two verses in the JPS and KJV give radically different results – the former states that the Psalmist’s hands and feet are mauled by dogs or lions. The latter states that the assembly of the wicked has pierced the Psalmist’s hands and feet. This is a translation issue, specifically over the word ari, or lion.

In Hebrew, the verse reads karah ari yad regal. Literally, mauled lion hands feet.

The Companion Bible (which is the King James version plus notes on the text) goes into the Hebrew as well :

Psalm 22:16 said:

For dogs have compassed me :
The assembly of the wicked have inclosed me :
They pierced my hands and my feet.

Text notes for verse 16 said:

dogs. Fig. Hypocatastasis. Ap. 6. "Enemies" being implied (not expressed).
assembly = congregation : in civic aspect.
wicked = breakers up. Heb. ra'a'. Ap. 44. viii.
They pierced, &c. = "As a lion [they break up] my hands and my feet". The Heb. text reads ka'ari = as a lion (the "k" = as). The A.V. and R.V., with Sept., Syr., and Vulg., take the "k" as part of the verb k'aru, and alter the vowel points, making it read "they pierced". It is better to translate the Heb. text literally, and supply the Ellipsis of the verb from Isa. 38.13 "they break up". The meaning is exactly the same, and agrees with John 19.37.

So a better translation would have been :
For enemies have compassed me : The congregation of the breakers up have inclosed me : As a lion they break up my hands and my feet.
Note it should be 'as a lion' not 'a lion'.

Being nailed to a cross would most likely 'break up' your hands and your feet, as that is what would be supporting you.

There's also this :

Psalm 22:18 said:

They part my garments among them, And cast lots upon my vesture.

which was fulfilled by Matthew 27:35.

And this :

Psalm 22:8 said:

"He trusted on the LORD that He would deliver him : Let Him deliver him, seeing He delighted in him."

fulfilled later by :

Matthew 27:41-43 said:

41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said,
42 "He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him.
43 He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now, if He will have Him: for He said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

Which interpretation of the bible? Clearly the English version is not, since it is a man's translation and interpretation of the Hebrew version. Do you mean the original Hebrew texts prior to any translation? Sorry, but these no longer exist.

The bible is mostly certainly not God's Word. The best we can hope is that it is in some way derived from him, and that some of the original wisdom and truth still remains.

So according to you if you translate a text, then the original author no longer wrote it? This is blatantly false.

bamccaig

I don't even know where to start... Fuck it, this is always a classic:

video

SiegeLord

Hah. That video makes me want to actually read it :P. If nothing else, it'll arm me for these debates:

<SiegeLord> Well, I read the bible and it wasn't anything special.
<Christian> You clearly didn't open your mind, and you did not read it carefully enough.
<SiegeLord> >_<

... or not.

Anyway, about Psalm 22, the "predictions" in it are too general for my liking. I still think that it's purely coincidental that they came true (even if they did).

Seriously, people misquote real people from even a few years ago. How can you possibly believe passages in the Bible that claim prophecy fulfillment based on quote matching, when we screw up quotes today?

Edgar Reynaldo
SiegeLord said:

How can you possibly believe passages in the Bible that claim prophecy fulfillment based on quote matching, when we screw up quotes today?

Doesn't that make it more likely that the quotes are genuine then? Or did Jesus decide to just get up on the cross and quote the Old Testament because that's what was written there? ::) Yeah yeah, blah blah, it's a conspiracy of the church to attract more followers on the basis that "Hey if you join our church you can be persecuted too!" Whatever.

SiegeLord

Doesn't that make it more likely that the quotes are genuine then? Or did Jesus decide to just get up on the cross and quote the Old Testament because that's what was written there? ::) Yeah yeah, blah blah, it's a conspiracy of the church to attract more followers on the basis that "Hey if you join our church you can be persecuted too!" Whatever.

No, I'm saying that Jesus was extremely likely to have been misquoted.

Edgar Reynaldo

Accidentally misquoted using the words from the Old Testament in three different ways from the same psalm. Nice theory.

SiegeLord

It happens all the time, today.

Neil Black

Accidentally misquoted using the words from the Old Testament. Nice theory.

Or "accidentally" misquoted to fit the words in the Old Testament.

One of the main problems I see among Christians defending the Bible, is that we tend to assume that the writers of the Bible were being honest when they were writing it. And that's just not something we should assume without reason.

I'm not saying you don't have any reasons to assume that, but they haven't been expressed in this thread. So a lot of people think you're just assuming the writers are honest because it's your holy book, not for any rational reason.

Edgar Reynaldo

If you don't work from the assumption that what you are reading is true, then there's no point reading it unless you are looking for a good work of fiction - ie. if you work from the assumption that it is false, then why read it? To this date, none of what I have read from the Bible has been proven false, so I will continue with the assumption that it is true.

Yes, I noted the 'Biblical inconsistencies' site, and I can debunk at least several of their assertions of a contradiction by myself. A true Christian scholar can probably debunk the rest of them as well.

bamccaig
SiegeLord said:

Hah. That video makes me want to actually read it :P. If nothing else, it'll arm me for these debates...

Same here. It would be nice to actually read it just so that I could squash that "counter-argument" when used against me in debates. It's not that I'm unfamiliar with the Bible. I've read enough of it (and had much more preached to me) to recognize what appears to be contradictions and fallacies. Honestly, when I have attempted to actually read the Bible, I gave up rather quickly. It's a very dry read. On its own I think it's rather arbitrary too. Perhaps the authors assumed some kind of prior knowledge (or faith)? I honestly don't understand how anybody can get through it. So while I would like to have read it (numerous times) so that I could bring that knowledge to these debates, I don't see it happening any time soon. I can't even find time to read books that I want to read, like Algoirthms In C, or Dreaming In Code. I just don't read [books] a lot. :-/

SiegeLord said:

Anyway, about Psalm 22, the "predictions" in it are too general for my liking. I still think that it's purely coincidental that they came true (even if they did).

There's always the self-fulfilling prophecy argument.

Oh, what's that, something was written down thousands of years before humans allegedly acted it out? That's not proof of anything. It's entirely reasonable to assume that the people from the story were aware of the prophecy recorded thousands of years before and played out their parts. It's also reasonable to assume that accounts of the events were misreported and/or doctored; originally or during their many translations. Once again, using the Bible as proof of its own accuracy is silly and ridiculous.

23yrold3yrold

/looks at thread count

Wow. Really?

By the way, on Bible honesty ... if I were some of those writers and I thought I could lie and get away with it ... well, those chapters wouldn't be nearly as unflattering as they are of certain writers. ;D I mean, why lie and not ... you know ... lie?

bamccaig said:

Oh, what's that, something was written down thousands of years before humans allegedly acted it out? That's not proof of anything. It's entirely reasonable to assume that the people from the story were aware of the prophecy recorded thousands of years before and played out their parts.

"Their parts" usually involved gruesome deaths, ridiculously hard work with no promise of reward, something nuts like rallying a nation, etc. It's not like it was just "hey, this sounds cool, I'll be this guy".

Quote:

It's also reasonable to assume that accounts of the events were misreported and/or doctored; originally or during their many translations. Once again, using the Bible as proof of its own accuracy is silly and ridiculous.

Keep in mind the only real accounts at the time (depending on what events you're talking about) were largely known only to scholars and historians. And the relatively large numbers of documents that have survived the years show little to no change (I find myself repeating for the umpteenth time). And again, if they're going to doctor accounts, you'd think they'd make themselves look better ...

Neil Black

If you don't work from the assumption that what you are reading is true, then there's no point reading it unless you are looking for a good work of fiction - ie. if you work from the assumption that it is false, then why read it?

My point was that you shouldn't assume it is true just because. It shouldn't be "I haven't seen any evidence to disprove this, therefore it is true," it should be "this document is interesting, I wonder if I can verify it with other sources?"

@23yrold3yrold:

Yeah, there are some good arguments for honesty, and I think that's one of them. I do believe the writers were honest. I'm just saying we shouldn't [i]assume[/i] as much.

EDIT:

bamccaig said:

It's also reasonable to assume that accounts of the events were misreported and/or doctored; originally or during their many translations.

You talk about the many translations as if we don't have very early copies to compare our modern translations to.

Matthew Leverton

"Their parts" usually involved gruesome deaths, ridiculously hard work with no promise of reward, something nuts like rallying a nation, etc. It's not like it was just "hey, this sounds cool, I'll be this guy".

It's ridiculous to think people "played out the part," but it's not so far-fetched that the story of Jesus could be fabricated (either intentionally, to help recruit believers, or accidentally) to fit the prophesies.

But I think the most important thing is that the prophesies are so vague, that 1500 years later it's easy to select a few of them and apply them to Jesus.

I can say a lot of crap right now, and given enough time, all of it will stick to something.

To this date, none of what I have read from the Bible has been proven false, so I will continue with the assumption that it is true.

It's statements like that (the assumption of truth), that give you no credibility. But I wonder, how does somebody prove something that allegedly happened 2000+ years ago to be false?

Serious question. What would be an example of something (i.e. a Biblical belief of yours) that could be proven to be false?

bamccaig

By the way, on Bible honesty ... if I were some of those writers and I thought I could lie and get away with it ... well, those chapters wouldn't be nearly as unflattering as they are of certain writers. ;D I mean, why lie and not ... you know ... lie?

You seem to be making a particular assumption of the author's intentions, and of their motives for writing what they did. Whoever wrote the texts presumably wanted what they wrote to be accepted as "gospel", which apparently they were for many hundreds of years. They quite literally couldn't just write anything they wanted to. At least, I'd like to think that you aren't that gullible. ;) In any case, what they wrote worked as far as I'm concerned. Approximately two thousand years later in the era of science and knowledge there are still millions of dedicated believers. Think of the money the church has made all of these years. If you assume that the entire God/Jesus/Bible thing is all a lie then it was a very successful business venture over the past thousands of years. Think of the people that made their living on it. :o

And again, if they're going to doctor accounts, you'd think they'd make themselves look better ...

Why should "they" make themselves look better (whoever "they" is)? You have absolutely no problem with "them", evidently, which probably means that it was a success as is.

My point was that you shouldn't assume it is true just because. It shouldn't be "I haven't seen any evidence to disprove this, therefore it is true," it should be "this document is interesting, I wonder if I can verify it with other sources?"

Well put. :)

You talk about the many translations as if we don't have very early copies to compare our modern translations to.

What's the earliest version that you have? ;) Do you have any hand written Bibles in your possession, for example? To my knowledge, the originals of both "testaments" are lost. Without those there is no way of assessing the quality of the existing copies, regardless of whether or not the originals were truthful or completely bullshit.

Compare it to the "telephone game" often played by children whereby the children all sit in a circle and whisper a secret from ear to ear from some arbitrary starting point to the end. As information passes from one mind to another it changes, either deliberately or incidentally. Without some impartial moderator knowing the original message there is no way to verify the accuracy of the information. Usually the outcome is erroneous (with children, it's often blatantly erroneous for obvious reasons, but I think that even with adults you'd find some changes, especially when the participants are motivated to do so).

Of course, that's all relatively insignificant when there's no reason to trust even the original copies.

Matthew Leverton
bamccaig said:

Compare it to the "telephone game" often played by children whereby the children all sit in a circle and whisper a secret from ear to ear from some arbitrary starting point to the end.

That's a bad comparison because you are dealing with written text that was copied. You can go back and cross reference everything.

There's no good reason to believe the Bible has significantly changed from when it was first written.

Edgar Reynaldo
bamccaig said:

It's entirely reasonable to assume that the people from the story were aware of the prophecy recorded thousands of years before and played out their parts.

So Jesus just hopped up onto the cross as part of a theatrical event? They nailed Him to it because they read it in Psalm 22? The soldiers gambled for his clothes because it was part of a script? The chief priests decided to quote Psalm 22 because they were just playing out a part? This is a reasonable expectation how?

Self fulfilling prophecy? You mean where if you say something reasonable, eventually it will come true? It's pretty amazing that three separate predictions all came true at the same time, but go ahead and dismiss it as coincidence.

bamccaig said:

Once again, using the Bible as proof of its own accuracy is silly and ridiculous.

Once again, you're hypocrites. "Duh. Prove God without using the Bible." Duh. Prove evolution without science.

None of you will ever have proof of God's existence short of Him revealing Himself to you directly, but why should he do that? He already sent His Son, and his Word, and He sent His servants to teach His Word, what more do you need?

I Corinthians 15:50 said:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Flesh cannot enter Heaven, simple as that. So looking for scientific proof of God is pointless and you'll never have it.

My point was that you shouldn't assume it is true just because. It shouldn't be "I haven't seen any evidence to disprove this, therefore it is true," it should be "this document is interesting, I wonder if I can verify it with other sources?"

The Bible verifies itself internally, it ties itself together, and as a whole makes sense. That's hard to do for a writing written by many authors over many centuries and translated into many different languages.

It's statements like that (the assumption of truth), that give you no credibility.

The only source of credibility I have to rely on is the Bible, and inspiration from the Holy Spirit. There are no other works that I know that correlate the Bible, and if they did they would probably be part of it anyway. I don't personally know of any archeolgical evidence but that doesn't mean it isn't there waiting to be discovered. The fact that biblical writings have survived with very little change over several centuries and that many people still believe in them gives testament to the power of the Bible itself.

Matthew Leverton said:

Serious question. What would be an example of something (i.e. a Biblical belief of yours) that could be proven to be false?

Probably not much, but can you prove any of it to be false?

bamccaig said:

Whoever wrote the texts presumably wanted what they wrote to be accepted as "gospel", which apparently they were for many hundreds of years.

This however, is not an easy thing to do, especially when you are going against the major 'religions' of the time. Christians were jailed, exiled, executed, and Jesus was crucified! Do you honestly think that this kind of treatment would be appealing to people? They wrote it that way just to gain followers, really?

The cynicism, doubt, and paranoid conspiracy meter on this thread is way off the charts. :-/

Neil Black
bamccaig said:

To my knowledge, the originals of both "testaments" are lost. Without those there is no way of assessing the quality of the existing copies, regardless of whether or not the originals were truthful or completely .

I know that the Dead Sea Scrolls provide a huge amount of evidence that the Old Testament was practically the same a few centuries before Jesus was born as what we have today. For the New Testament I don't know, off the top of my head, what the earliest copies we have our. But I know a New Testament scholar I can ask, and I have his class on Tuesday.

And no, it's not really like a game of telephone. Mostly because we have these earlier copies to check again. If you want to use the telephone analogy, then you'd have to modify the game.

First, each person would tell two other people (to simulate the stories spreading around other regions), and second, at any point you'd be able to go and ask the second, third, or fourth person in the chain (it would vary depending on which document) what the message they heard was. Oh, and you'd be able to look at the stories along the expanding chains, and compare them to each other to see where they differ and thus deduce where errors might have crept in.

EDIT:

So Jesus just hopped up onto the cross as part of a theatrical event? They nailed Him to it because they read it in Psalm 22? The soldiers gambled for his clothes because it was part of a script? The chief priests decided to quote Psalm 22 because they were just playing out a part? This is a reasonable expectation how?

Or the writers might have lied about how the specific events played out. Maybe the priests never really quoted Psalm 22. Or the soldiers didn't actually gamble for his clothes. To say that the prophecy was fulfilled, you need to have good arguments for why you think these things actually happened the way they were written down.

bamccaig

That's a bad comparison because you are dealing with written text that was copied. You can go back and cross reference everything.

It's not a perfect comparison, but from my own personal experience copying text by hand (i.e., in school) it is not a perfect process. Depending on context you might even attempt to improve upon what you were copying if you thought you had encountered an error, etc. It's not a perfect process. That said, if we could go back and cross reference everything then it would certainly be easier to trust the translations (well, once you had learned ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek). Honestly I think even if we did have the original texts there would still be debate among literary professionals about the translations because I don't think Hebrew and Greek can be 1:1 translated to English with absolute accuracy.

There's no good reason to believe the Bible has significantly changed from when it was first written.

There's no good reason to believe it hasn't either.

Neil Black
bamccaig said:

That said, if we could go back and cross reference everything then it would certainly be easier to trust the translations (well, once you had learned ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek).

Which is one of the things that scholars in the field have done (and continue to do). I'm hoping to learn ancient Greek myself over the next couple of semesters. Mostly because it's amazingly convenient in terms of fulfilling credit hours (it will cover three different requirements for me), but also because I can actually look at the early documents and read them myself.

Or did you think that the earliest document scholars use was the King James Version?

EDIT:

Also, you talk of "many translations" as if our modern Bibles are translated from the KJV or something. No. When making a new translation, scholars will use the earliest manuscripts we have to help verify staying true to the original text.

Matthew Leverton

Probably not much, but can you prove any of it to be false?

I cannot prove the Quran is false. I cannot prove the Book of Mormon is false. I cannot prove the Bible is false. Each have a lot of believers. Each have withstood the test of time. None of that means anything.

For the scientific impossibilities, invoke God.

And other than that, what else is there? Nobody can ever possibly disprove something that allegedly occurred 2000 years ago.

So why bother asking the question when you don't allow there to possibly be a contradictory answer? What is this, a communist election? Do you like to pretend to yourself that you are applying some logical reasoning?

Instead of coming up with silly statements of how the Bible must be true until shown otherwise, you ought to focus on proof you have that it's true.

If, ultimately, you have no proof, then simply say you have faith, and that's that. There's no shame in that. However, there is shame in saying stupid things.

bamccaig said:

There's no good reason to believe it hasn't either.

Good grief, that's as ridiculous as Edgar's statement.

The oldest texts that date back thousands of years are extremely similar to each other, and it's usually quite easy to tell where the mistakes were made. You can go back and look at those any time you want! This isn't some he-said, she-said game.

Scribes devoted their lives to copying the text. It meant a lot to them, and they tried their hardest to do it perfectly. That pales in comparison to your wimpy writing skills.

23yrold3yrold
bamccaig said:

You seem to be making a particular assumption of the author's intentions, and of their motives for writing what they did. Whoever wrote the texts presumably wanted what they wrote to be accepted as "gospel", which apparently they were for many hundreds of years.

I don't know how you can keep saying that everyone else is making assumptions, and then say blatant things like this. ::) Especially since it's the same assumption (ie: the author's intentions). The Bible is a collection of historical documents, and their inclusion was decided anywhere from a few hundred to two thousand years after they were written. And you think the authors intended what? Okay, serious question: are you high? I defy any rational person to read the assumptions in your posts and conclude they're more rational than the ones you're arguing against ... especially when the latter has the document evidence on its side.

Quote:

You have absolutely no problem with "them", evidently, which probably means that it was a success as is.

I don't? The point was that I did. Seriously, start reading and stop reading into.

Quote:

What's the earliest version that you have? ;) Do you have any hand written Bibles in your possession, for example? To my knowledge, the originals of both "testaments" are lost. Without those there is no way of assessing the quality of the existing copies, regardless of whether or not the originals were truthful or completely bullshit.

"To your knowledge" being the operative. By your own admission, your knowledge is crap. ::) Look at the process historians use to cross-check ancient documents for changes and accuracy. Not your standards. Professional standards by actual people who know what they're doing. You know, experts? Not "religious" ones either?

Quote:

Compare it to the "telephone game" often played by children whereby the children all sit in a circle and whisper a secret from ear to ear from some arbitrary starting point to the end.

Read up on the process by which these documents were copied over the years. Things like copying each word individually while saying it aloud. There's a much higher standard to this than "children playing telephone". I know that's the atheist go-to excuse, but think about it for more than two seconds. Nobody cares about your "own personal experience copying text by hand" in school. Come on.

Rant over I guess, but really. I know how much more civil I can be while still getting your idiotic blind beliefs across to you. Maybe this is your way of showing me what you have to deal with from religious people? Are you just copying the worst fundie you ever met in attempt to troll? If so, good work. ;D

REVISION!!!:

Which is one of the things that scholars in the field have done (and continue to do).

I don't think he understands that people much smarter than him have confirmed all this. How many pages do you think until he catches on? :P

Neil Black

I don't think he understands that people much smarter than him have confirmed all this. How many pages do you think until he catches on?

Dunno. Facing information that's new to me, and goes completely against my beliefs and biases... I can't say I'd do any better than he is.

23yrold3yrold

Dunno. Facing information that's new to me, and goes completely against my beliefs and biases... I can't say I'd do any better than he is.

I know, but this doesn't really affect core beliefs that much, does it? I mean, just because the text has stood the test of time doesn't automatically prove God, right? This should be an easy one to accept. Relatively speaking.

It's just a book. Geez. ::)

Neil Black

Yes, but giving in to one argument can feel like switching sides entirely. I've experienced that fallacy myself.

Edgar Reynaldo

Personal experiences with God :
1) I heard a voice in my head saying someone in my family had been in a car accident. An hour or two later, my family member called saying they had been in a car accident a couple hours ago and just finished sorting it out with the police. Where did the voice come from, and how did it know what was taking place miles away? The simplest explanation is God (through the Holy Spirit), an Angel, or at the least some supernatural force.

2) I had just finished reading the book of Joshua, which details the fall of the city Jericho. Shortly after that I watched an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation and a character on the show said "Even the walls of Jericho fell". To me it seemed that God wanted to let me know that he saw me reading His Word.

3) I don't recall why, but I had said some really nasty hateful things to God, and I was generally in a foul mood for quite a while. When I had calmed down and reconsidered the things I had said, I apologized to God for being such an awful asshole and asked for His forgiveness in the name of Jesus Christ. As I repented, a vision of Christ on the cross came into my mind. I asked God why He would forgive me for such awful things and I heard a voice in my head say, "For the Glory of My Son Jesus Christ."

4) While listening to Shepherd's Chapel on TV I have several times experienced a peace and calm that was not normal for me. I believe this is due to the Holy Spirit (the 'Comforter', which Jesus said He would send unto us).

5) There was a time when I was fairly cynical towards God, and let Him know how I felt, that I didn't believe what He said and that it couldn't possibly be true. I spent many a day with fear and anticipation of how he would react to me. Once I repented, the fear and anxiety went away.

6) Numerous other occasions where after studying the Bible (reading, or watching Shepherd's Chapel on TV) things that were mentioned would happen in real life as well. It seems to be God letting me know that he can see the future, and that he sees what is going on all around us as well. Note that things like this do not normally occur with other environments.

So there you have it, my experiences with God.

Feel free to commence mocking me and calling me delusional and psychotic. Call what happened to me coincidental and purely circumstantial. Say that what happened to me is simply pyscho-sematic. I can take it. Your disbelief won't shake my faith.

May the LORD reveal Himself to you as well in due time. In Christ's name, amen.

Neil Black

I won't mock you or call you delusional. Although I have no way to verify your specific experiences, I believe that such things are possible.

That said, mundane explanations for most of the things you mentioned spring easily to mind. And when talking to someone who is already antagonistic to your point of view, they'll think of even nastier things. They might call some of them coincidence, or say that you subconsciously made yourself feel that way. Some might even outright call you a liar.

In short, experiences like that are wonderful (I've had a couple myself), but they don't make for very good arguments to give non-believers.

NiteHackr

Great stuff, very inspiring Edgar. I could tell a few myself, but I don't feel like putting my head on the chopping block again, so to speak. ;)

Tobias Dammers

So you believe in the miraculous then? Jesus must have died about 30 years before he was born if your statement is correct, considering The Gospel of Mark was written around 70 A.D. and Jesus died around year 30.

(snip)

Quote:

But I do know there's no way you can say with certainty that they were written "100 years after Jesus' death." Why stop there? Why not make it 500 years?I think it shows a great deal of ignorance on your part to have to resort to spreading lies, Fox News style, in your fight against Christianity. There are so many valid ways to poke holes at common doctrines and beliefs of Christians, that you don't have to resort to such a thing.

Touché. I guess I remembered wrong (or maybe the article I read got it wrong or was based on outdated knowledge).

For the record, I'm not fighting Christianity here. There's a lot of good stuff there, and I don't think there's anything wrong with using the Bible for inspiration, looking at what Jesus said, and following his teachings.

What I am fighting is the ignorant, closed-minded, self-assured, unreasonable attitude that makes people refuse to participate in a normal discussion.

I cannot prove the Quran is false. I cannot prove the Book of Mormon is false. I cannot prove the Bible is false. Each have a lot of believers. Each have withstood the test of time. None of that means anything. For the scientific impossibilities, invoke God.
And other than that, what else is there? Nobody can ever possibly disprove something that allegedly occurred 2000 years ago.
So why bother asking the question when you don't allow there to possibly be a contradictory answer? What is this, a communist election? Do you like to pretend to yourself that you are applying some logical reasoning?
Instead of coming up with silly statements of how the Bible must be true until shown otherwise, you ought to focus on proof you have that it's true.
If, ultimately, you have no proof, then simply say you have faith, and that's that. There's no shame in that. However, there is shame in saying stupid things.

Thank you. Although I don't think we're going anywhere with this. It's been noted a few times already that the burden of proof is on those who make a claim, not on those who reject it based on lack of evidence.

Neil Black

It's been noted a few times already that the burden of proof is on those who make a claim, not on those who reject it based on lack of evidence.

And what about non-believers who go to a Christian and say, "The Bible is false and there is no God. Now you have to prove God is real and the Bible is true."?

I'm not saying that's happening in this thread. Indeed, I agree that here the burden of proof should lie squarely on the people defending Christianity. But I've seen people in the past make the assertion that the Bible is false.

There's a difference between saying that there isn't enough evidence to believe in something, and saying that something is false. Claiming something is false (rather than that there isn't enough evidence) should mean that there is some evidence of the thing being false.

That said, in most situations I tend to interpret an atheist's "the Bible is false" as "there isn't enough evidence to support it", unless they make it clear that they mean to assert falsehood and not just cite lack of evidence.

What really bothers me is when someone says "science proves the Bible is false," and then they go on to say that there is no evidence to support the Bible. Uhm... no. That's not proof that the Bible is false (although it would be an understandable reason to not believe). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Matthew Leverton

Feel free to commence mocking me and calling me delusional and psychotic.

I'm not mocking anybody. I'm just calling out bogus arguments, regardless of who makes them.

Quote:

Call what happened to me coincidental and purely circumstantial.

Why should I? I'm not trying to get you to change your beliefs. Defending your own faith is different from trying to push it onto others as a provable truth. Your personal experiences are a more valid basis for why you should believe than anything else you've been saying.

And what about non-believers who go to a Christian and say, "The Bible is false and there is no God. Now you have to prove God is real and the Bible is true."?

The Bible isn't "false until proven true" in the sense you are implying. It's simply unverified until proven true. Same with God.

But the bolder the claim, the more proof is needed to satisfy people. That's only fair. If I said I went bowling and scored a 50, you'd be likely to believe me even if I gave no proof. If I said I bowled a perfect game, I'd get the "pics or it didn't happen" treatment.

So while it's unfair to say the Bible is certifiably false until proven true, the likelihood of it being true in the absence of proof is very small given its incredible claims.

Neil Black

So while it's unfair to say the Bible is certifiably false until proven true, the likelihood of it being true in the absence of proof is very small given its incredible claims.

Oh, I agree with you. I was talking more about people who say that "science has proved the Bible is false", and the only argument they make is that "Christians have no evidence that the Bible is true." Even if it were true that we have no evidence to support the Bible, that would not "prove the Bible is false."

That said, without any evidence it's perfectly understandable to not believe the Bible. Just don't say it's been proven false on those grounds.

Polybios

nm

Derezo

I heard a voice in my head saying someone in my family had been in a car accident.

I have had experiences like this both big and small. Small in the sense that I know who is calling when the phone rings, and I awaken from my sleep moments before it occurs. To the big, where suddenly my entire body feels crushed for no reason, and an awareness of a horrible tragedy comes to light, like when my uncle died. To define that experience, I refer to the concept of the universal mind. I do believe in 'angels', but define them as cosmic beings who are so advanced in evolution that they are capable of influencing other beings within their own galaxy and beyond, using an awareness of the manipulation of the 11 dimensions of space and time which all life becomes capable of through the natural process of evolution, if it survives. Some people play the game of life better than other people, and Jesus did a pretty amazing job of it. Congrats to him, and to his teachings.

Quote:

I had just finished reading the book of Joshua, which details the fall of the city Jericho. Shortly after that I watched an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation and a character on the show said "Even the walls of Jericho fell". To me it seemed that God wanted to let me know that he saw me reading His Word.

I refer to this as Synchronicity, and to me it means you're following the path set forth to you by a cosmic being, but wikipedia's description is much easier to digest. I could give many examples of this in my own life. One much like yours happened in Psychology class last semester, we were talking about the nuances of languages and how they develop over time based on the needs of the culture that uses the language. The teacher said "Eskimos, for example, have many words for snow" [which wikipedia disagrees with], and for some reason I paid special attention to that portion of her lecture. Later I went home and started chatting with a friend, and in an unrelated discussion referred to "the puppeteers running the government". He recommended the movie Being John Malkovich, where Cameron Diaz makes the exact same Eskimo reference. Having never heard that before, and having placed specific attention to it, I immediately realized I was experiencing another synchronized event. Hearing it twice in the same day was a very odd experience. That movie was extremely thought provoking, as well. I hadn't watched a full length movie for about a month prior to that.

I've had many similar situations that point to a higher order beyond myself, but which I am also capable of invoking directly through ritual, meditation (prayer), intention and action. Defining this order as 'God' is very nondescript of the specific events that are unfolding. Referring to that level of God as 'Energy', 'Life', or other term where the ultimate source of origin of the thing is unknown is just as well. It just lacks a certain human quality that is bestowed upon 'God The Father'.

Evert

There's no good reason to believe the Bible has significantly changed from when it was first written.

With the caveat that not all of the Bible was written at one point in time, but grew over the course of centuries until about 2000 years ago. This is true of both the Old and New Testaments.
I don't remember exactly how old the oldest copies of the New Testament text are (Koptic texts?). The oldest copies of the Old Testament are the Dead Sea scrolls, which are about 2000 years old. They do show that the changes to the Old Testament text since then are mostly small, but sometimes very interesting.

Read up on the process by which these documents were copied over the years. Things like copying each word individually while saying it aloud.

People used to read by saying the words they read aloud. Either way, it's known that some copyists who copied the Bible couldn't actually read what they were writing, and even those who did made small mistakes. That doesn't matter one way or the other, except to say that it's not true that no mistakes were ever made copying the Bible.

axilmar
SiegeLord said:

How is that relevant? You get very useful theories well before you are 100% sure of their correctness. You're missing the point of science: find hypotheses which fit the observed data the best. Just because multiple hypotheses fit the data equally well doesn't mean they are equally favorable or that there is no objective way to choose between them. Bayes theorem, or it's popular corollary of Occam's razor specifies which theory is best if they both fit the data equally well.Get this idea of proving something 100% out of your head. You cannot prove things in the real world, every statement made about the real world has a non-zero (even if infinitesimally small) probability of being false. It also has the same guarantee about being true, even the most unlikely things might be true (but they are unlikely to be true).But above all, just because two theories are not 100% proven, doesn't mean that they are on equal standing and are equally likely. That is not the case mathematically, and it is not how science has advanced historically.

I couldn't agree more. All I am saying is that science disproves religions but it does not disprove the existence of a creator of the universe.

EDIT:

Reading the rest of the thread prompted me to write a few more things.

#1:

The Bible cannot be used as proof of God, because when we are trying to prove God's existence, what we are trying to prove is Bible's truthfulness. So the Bible cannot be used as proof, because it's the thing that we are trying to prove.

#2:

Christianity is obviously false, since being a Christian is the only path to heaven, which automatically disqualifies all non-christians born before Christ. This is valid for other religions as well with similar concepts.

#3:

A lot of the Bible text loses its actual meaning when translated from Greek to English. Me being Greek I can read the original ancient text, and let me tell you, the modern English Bible contains some serious mistranslations; for example, the English version talks about slaves in the modern sense, when the Ancient Greek version talks about slaves in the ancient sense (more like workers who lived with their boss).

#4:

Philosophically, an infinite God does not need to create anything, let alone a universe with people in it. Having a need means to be incomplete, and an infinite God cannot be incomplete, because otherwise he is not infinite in at least one domain.

#5:

The concept of creation (i.e. before/after states) itself requires a spacetime. If God created the universe, then God existed in a spacetime that was larger than God, making God finite. Therefore, someone created the spacetime God existed in, which creates a recursive question about who created the universe that God existed in when God created our universe. The paradox of infinite Gods means that most probably there is no God.

#6:

Coincidences are not proof of God. The universe is a huge state machine: billions of billions of billions of particles conspire every femtosecond to create every state possible; some of the states might create situations where it seems that there is a prediction. It's not, it's simply a coincidence.

Voices in our heads are not God's voice. It's just us talking to ourselves.

Experiencing feelings like being in peace or very angry has nothing to do with God. It's a self produced state of mind.

#7:

Philosophically, predictions do not make sense, because they contradict free will. It's either that God gaves us free will, and therefore the future cannot be predicted, or God didn't gave us free will, and therefore the future can be predicted. There is no middle ground, because the two concepts (predefined path / free path) are contradictory.

Vanneto

So, axilmar, what did you achieve with this?

None of them will change their minds. They'll read it but they might as well not read it - same shit.

I for one agree with all of you. :-)

SiegeLord

Yeah, about that... what success rate have people been having with convincing theists that they are wrong?

J-Gamer

None probably... Or at least not with theists who don't want to listen to reason.

23yrold3yrold

Tell me if I'm not listening:

1. No argument here.

2. That's why there was an old covenant and a new covenant. No one said being a Christian was the only way anyone got to heaven. Tsk; what a religious view. ;)

3: No doubt; that's why some people still go back to the Greek. I repeat for the zillionth time; show me any doctrine that is in question due to mistranslation.

4: I don't know why "infinite" came up; maybe this is someone else's comments. I thought we established that, literally and practically speaking, He wasn't.

5: See 4.

6: No argument here.

7: I've seen this one argued a lot of different ways. That's the view you choose to believe in? That's cool; I don't think being able to predict the future automatically discounts free will. I can go check the five-day forecast right now; doesn't mean my destiny is set in stone. :P

Evert said:

People used to read by saying the words they read aloud. Either way, it's known that some copyists who copied the Bible couldn't actually read what they were writing, and even those who did made small mistakes. That doesn't matter one way or the other, except to say that it's not true that no mistakes were ever made copying the Bible.

I'm only saying there were no errors on the level bammy and others are saying there were. It's not a 100% flawless process, but it's as close to perfect as humanly possible.

axilmar
Vanneto said:

None of them will change their minds. They'll read it but they might as well not read it.

It's ok. It's a very slow process anyway.

No one said being a Christian was the only way anyone got to heaven.

Quote:

John 3:3: "...no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

There are more like the above.

Quote:

I repeat for the zillionth time; show me any doctrine that is in question due to mistranslation.

Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences.

Had the original text been 100% clear, there would be no chance to interpret it one way or the other.

Quote:

I don't know why "infinite" came up; maybe this is someone else's comments. I thought we established that, literally and practically speaking, He wasn't.

God is presented as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, correct?

I.e. God is everywhere at once, i.e. is infinite in quantity and size, God knows all past, present and future, i.e. has infinite knowledge, There is nothing God cannot do, i.e. he has infinite capability.

I.e. God is infinite.

Quote:

I've seen this one argued a lot of different ways. That's the view you choose to believe in? That's cool; I don't think being able to predict the future automatically discounts free will. I can go check the five-day forecast right now; doesn't mean my destiny is set in stone.

The weather forecast is a mathematical calculation about the future state of a system based on the present state of a system. This alone means that the weather forecast does not have a component that is based on 'free will'.

Any system that contains a 'free will' component cannot be computed, by definition.

Think about it as a mathematical formula: free will is a variable with an unknown value, and therefore the computation result cannot be known until we know this value.

Evert

I'm only saying there were no errors on the level bammy and others are saying there were.

Ok.

axilmar said:

God is presented as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, correct?

Oh oh...

23yrold3yrold
axilmar said:

There are more like the above.

"The above" doesn't say "be a Christian". And like I said, there was an old covenant and a new covenant. Take things in context; it's not a legal document and wasn't meant to be read as one, dude. :)

Quote:

Had the original text been 100% clear, there would be no chance to interpret it one way or the other.

There's actually not a whole lot there about mistranslations. There's a lot there about disagreements on what verses mean what, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Quote:

God is presented as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, correct?

Utter nonsense. Where were you last thread?

Quote:

Any system that contains a 'free will' component cannot be computed, by definition.

It can still be predicted. Practical jokers do it all the time. :)

bamccaig

1) I heard a voice in my head saying someone in my family had been in a car accident. An hour or two later, my family member called saying they had been in a car accident a couple hours ago and just finished sorting it out with the police. Where did the voice come from, and how did it know what was taking place miles away? The simplest explanation is God (through the Holy Spirit), an Angel, or at the least some supernatural force.

The human brain is a funny thing. We don't fully understand it, but we do know that it can play tricks on you if you aren't careful.

So you found out that your family member had been in a car accident. Did you know who it was? Did you attempt to contact them, or to contact friends or family to see if they were OK? Did you just shrug and wait for the phone call hours later? In the end I assume he/she (I also assume she, but I digress... :P) was fine since they themselves called you to tell you they had just finished sorting things out with the police. So what do you think God was tell you about it for? "Knowing" (or having a subtle hint) about the accident hours before seemingly afforded you nothing extra. I would question why God or the angel was wasting your time with it. It seems pointless.

The only purpose this example serves is to re-enforce your own beliefs (and the beliefs of other believers). So is God just calling people up at random now? "By the way, I do exist!" Or is it more likely that your mind is just playing tricks on you?

In particular, this may result from an overlap between the neurological systems responsible for short-term memory and those responsible for long-term memory (events which are perceived as being in the past). The events would be stored into memory before the conscious part of the brain even receives the information and processes it.

Déjà vu isn't fully understood, but most people experience it, religious and atheists alike. :P There are times when I'm so sure that I'm remembering an exact scene happening before it happens, as if I had dreamed it previously or something. I think an anomaly in my brain is a far better explanation though. Remember that our conscious mind is actually enclosed inside of a skull and skin. What we know of the world around us comes from sensory organs. Think of it as piloting an aircraft without windows based only on what your instruments tell you. If the instruments or computer systems are wrong (or lagged) then your perception of what's happening and what has happened will be wrong.

The good news is that it's completely normal. The bad news is that it's completely normal.

2) I had just finished reading the book of Joshua, which details the fall of the city Jericho. Shortly after that I watched an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation and a character on the show said "Even the walls of Jericho fell". To me it seemed that God wanted to let me know that he saw me reading His Word.

I've experienced the same effect many times before. It is you that is assuming that it is a message from God, probably because you'd really really like to get one. It is pretty much the definition of a coincidence though. It just so happens that with so many things happening in the universe eventually related things cross paths and sometimes it happens in ways that seem surreal to us. That doesn't make them special or magical. Statistically speaking they are likely to happen quite often on the global scale.

4) While listening to Shepherd's Chapel on TV I have several times experienced a peace and calm that was not normal for me. I believe this is due to the Holy Spirit (the 'Comforter', which Jesus said He would send unto us).

This would be due to the program re-enforcing your beliefs and telling you exactly what you want to hear. That you're a good person, that there is a God, and that God loves you specifically. If you believe what you're being told by these programs then it's natural to feel good about yourself. You'd feel just as good if you were watching pr0n and believed what the girls were saying. ;D

5) There was a time when I was fairly cynical towards God, and let Him know how I felt, that I didn't believe what He said and that it couldn't possibly be true. I spent many a day with fear and anticipation of how he would react to me. Once I repented, the fear and anxiety went away.

This can be explained by the negative connotations associated with non-believers. You were effectively beating yourself up for being a "bad person" for questioning God. Once you convinced yourself that it was wrong to do so, you stopped and your fear and anxiety went away (because you were no longer being "bad" and "no longer" had anything to fear). It's a bit like how children usually feel bad doing something they know their parents would be angry about even before getting caught. It's called guilt. Guilty people usually feel better when they confess or right their wrongs. The thing is that you can feel guilty even when you've done nothing wrong if you're convinced that what you did is wrong anyway.

So there you have it, my experiences with God.

I'm afraid we all experience these things and they aren't God. At least, there's no good reason to believe they are directly or indirectly influenced by any deity.

Feel free to commence mocking me and calling me delusional and psychotic. Call what happened to me coincidental and purely circumstantial. Say that what happened to me is simply pyscho-sematic. I can take it. Your disbelief won't shake my faith.

You seem to imply that the atheists of this board would enjoy doing you harm. I don't think anyone here is motivated to do so. I am speaking from experience because when I was a believer I experienced the same things that you're describing now. I wholeheartedly believed too that they were signs from God. The thing is that I continued to experience them even without any belief in God, and very rarely does it cross my mind that maybe it was some kind of message from God. I can always explain it entirely in my own mind. I don't need to look for supernatural explanations.

AFAIK, none of these are symptoms of psychosis. The things you experienced are actually very common and completely normal. Your interpretation of them might be delusional, but as long as you aren't hurting anybody I see no reason to stage an intervention. :P However, I hope you didn't expect your experiences to enlighten the atheists among us. We have surely all experienced those things before and need no God to explain them.

SiegeLord said:

Yeah, about that... what success rate have people been having with convincing theists that they are wrong?

I can't say with any level of certainty, but I think I have had a positive influence on a number of people. That is, I've made them question their beliefs in ways that they were afraid to do before. I've lost touch with all of them so I can't say if they ever did change their beliefs. One did for a short while. I was very shocked too because she's from a very religious family. It happened when she moved away from their pressure though for school. Her very religious family and friends pressured her back into it when she came home one summer though. After that she just closed her mind and refused to discuss it, as if she had lost the right to make her own decisions... :(

Thomas Fjellstrom

I sometimes get Deja vu of Deja vu of Deja vu. Its a real brain-fsck.

J-Gamer

My weirdest experience with a déjà vu yet:
Seemed to have dreamt a situation the night before, and in the dream I had a feeling of déjà vu. So it was a double one ^^

NiteHackr

603852

Matthew Leverton

Arguing with axilmar over religion has got to be the most useless thing ever. ;D

But it will be enjoyable to see him certifiably debunk a 2000 year old religion with a sentence or two. I expect the headline tomorrow to be, "Man on Internet proves Christianity is OBVIOUSLY false."

23yrold3yrold

I expect the headline tomorrow to be, "Man on Internet proves Christianity is OBVIOUSLY false."

Wait, didn't he do that at some point? I remember someone starting a thread like that a long time ago. Science falsifying some strawman and saying they'd disproved religion and anyone who didn't agree was dumb. Might have been someone else but it was funny.

Neil Black

Wait, didn't he do that at some point? I remember someone starting a thread like that a long time ago. Science falsifying some strawman and saying they'd disproved religion and anyone who didn't agree was dumb. Might have been someone else but it was funny.

No, no. You're thinking of a book by Dawkins. :P

Onewing

I can't keep up with this thread, but it is interesting trying to grasp and understand each person's view.

Personally, and I've stated it before, I believe our existence has purpose and isn't just a result of a series of causes and effects (which may either be out of fear of eventual non-existence or me being biased from my upbringings). From that, I believe there is a higher power. Beyond that, I just hope for some form of guidance to know what is right and wrong.

By the way, what is this called? I don't think it's traditional Christianity, even though I lean more towards the Bible than any other religious texts.

Karadoc ~~

From my point of view, Christianity is obviously false. I was convinced a long time ago, and throughout the course of my life I've heard many many very convincing arguments that further that conviction. Unfortunately, the non-existence of God isn't really provable. The closest we can do is present more plausible explanations for things, and try to shrink the living space of the God of the gaps.

But I understand that the foundations for my way of thinking are not the same as the foundations used by everyone. The same arguments that I've found to be absolutely convincing just can't seem to find stable ground in the minds of thoroughly religious people, even people who seem smart and logical. So I can only assume that we must have different axioms or something. I've pretty much given up on hope of convincing strong-minded Christians to give up their beliefs, but I'm still interested in finding out the root of our disagreement.

Neil Black

Well, one difference is that not all believers have a God of the gaps mentality. With me, for example, you can go ahead and fill in every gap in modern science, and it won't shake my faith.

I've always disliked the God of the gaps arguments some Christians use. If we don't know what's behind a certain "gap" in our knowledge, then how can we know that God is behind it? It's silly to just assume the answer is God when we don't know the answer.

NiteHackr

I've always disliked the God of the gaps arguments some Christians use. If we don't know what's behind a certain "gap" in our knowledge, then how can we know that God is behind it? It's silly to just assume the answer is God when we don't know the answer.

I agree. I believe God has a lot of laws he set down, not just spiritual but physical laws like gravity, various laws science has discovered etc. There is no reason why one can't enjoy the scientific method and believe in God at the same time. Just as many churches are wrong about some aspects of God and His laws, so is science wrong about some things.

Just because we don't understand how God does something in nature, doesn't mean we can't discover it. Discovering how things happen doesn't, in my mind, prove there is no God, but simply shows more knowledge about his physical laws and how he does it.

blargmob
Neil Roy said:

There is no reason why one can't enjoy the scientific method and believe in God at the same time.

There are plenty of reasons.

For example, creationism being completely falsifiable via the scientific method.

23yrold3yrold

For example, creationism being completely falsifiable via the scientific method.

This just in: all Christians believe in the formal theory of creationism! It's proven by science!

NiteHackr

For example, creationism being completely falsifiable via the scientific method.

In your opinion.

blargmob

This just in: all Christians believe in the formal theory of creationism! It's proven by science!

Neil didn't say anything about Christianity..neither did I. Please lrn2read.

EDIT:

Neil Roy said:

In your opinion.

Oh really? So those 40 million year old fossils dated using Carbon Dating are actually only 12 thousand years old?

23yrold3yrold

Neil didn't say anything about Christianity..neither did I. Please lrn2read.

We're talking about a different creationism then? Fine; all theists.

blargmob

Neil, this is for you since you don't seem to grasp the fact that Creationism is falsifiable indefinitely in almost every single aspect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Evert

So those 40 million year old fossils dated using Carbon Dating

Sorry, carbon dating doesn't work for objects that are 40 million years old, the half-life of 14C is far too short for that.
You can use other isotopes and the same idea though, maybe that's what you meant?

23yrold3yrold

What he meant is whatever currently supports his beliefs. Whatever that is ... is what he meant. ;)

blargmob
Evert said:

You can use other isotopes and the same idea though, maybe that's what you meant?

PPPFFFFFFFFF

Yeah. We always end up using the term "carbon dating" to encompass all isotope decay techniques of "natural clocks" in our physics class.

NiteHackr

Oh really? So those 40 million year old fossils dated using Carbon Dating are actually only 12 thousand years old?

There's nothing in the bible that says the universe can't be 40 million years old.

You would have to have studied the bible like I have to know that though. IN Genesis it states:

1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Doesn't say when that was, could have been a billion years ago, could have been less... doesn't say.

1:2) Now the earth was formless and empty darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

In the margin of my bible it has a note regarding the word "formless" that says "or possible became". Because the original hebrew has that meaning "became formless and empty". Notice the earth and the waters existed already, and they became formless, you don't become formless unless at one point you were not formless and void. So there is evidence that there was an earth that existed in another state.

Satan used to be in charge of the earth before he rebelled against God, this rebellion happened before we were created, so the Earth obviously existed, was he responsible for what happened to the Dinosaurs? We have no way of knowing for certain what happened back then.

There could have been several reasons there was no light on the earth, a cloud covering the earth preventing light and killing off the dinosaurs has been postulated by science. Were they killed off in the great war between God and Satan? That's what I think happened. But I will admit that is my opinion. I think there is plenty of evidence to back up that the earth has obviously been around for a very long time. But that doesn't contradict the bible one bit.

Edit:

What he meant is whatever currently supports his beliefs. Whatever that is ... is what he meant. ;)

You're absolutely right, but I would think that is obvious. To us anyhow. ;)

Yeah. We always end up using the term "carbon dating" to encompass all isotope decay techniques of "natural clocks" in our physics class.

I don't know of a method that can date back that far. Carbon dating is very limited. Fossils are usually dated based on the layer they are found on, and that is based on theories of sediment deposits which is questionable. But as I said, there's no reason to believe the earth came into existence 6000 years ago, the bible doesn't say that at all.

blargmob
Neil Roy said:

There's nothing in the bible that says the universe can't be 40 million years old.

IIRC, "Adam" lived about 6000 years ago. "Adam" was created on the 6th day of "God's" creation spree; so it follows that the Earth must also be 6000 years old.

NiteHackr

IIRC, "Adam" lived about 6000 years ago. "Adam" was created on the 6th day of "God's" creation spree; so it follows that the Earth must also be 6000 years old.

Yup, you're right, he was. The earth was already here though.

Edit: that is, the earth as we know it now was re-created at the same time, but the bible clearly states, in the first two verses as I quoted that it was without form and void, or more accurately, became without form and void, which would be a more accurate translation of the original Hebrew. Nothing at all in there about the earth being created and other evidence it was around long before as Satan was given rule over the earth before we were created, he was ruling over it when he rebelled against God, can't rule over something that didn't exist, now can we? (and i bet a lot of people never really thought about that aspect)

Neil Black

Neil, this is for you since you don't seem to grasp the fact that Creationism is falsifiable indefinitely in almost every single aspect:

I like how you follow this statement up by showing evidence that falsifies one aspect of one form of creationism... and it's not even a form of creationism anyone here has professed. I've never claimed or believed that the Earth is anything other than a few billion years old, and I don't think that the Bible necessarily does either.

23yrold3yrold

I like how you follow this statement up by showing evidence that falsifies [i]one[/i] aspect of [i]one[/i] form of creationism... and it's not even a form of creationism anyone here has professed.

Quiet; I want to see more strawmen.

/popcorn

blargmob

I like how you follow this statement up by showing evidence that falsifies one aspect of one form of creationism... and it's not even a form of creationism anyone here has professed.

1. Wrong Neil, Neil.

2. I'm not about to invest a ton of time gathering evidence for you that completely falsifies creationism. If you're so curious, go do the research yourself.

NiteHackr

1. Wrong Neil, Neil.

Well, you got me, I can't argue against that. <converts to atheism> ;D

23yrold3yrold

I'm not about to invest a ton of time gathering evidence for you that completely falsifies creationism.

DO IT DO IT DO IT

/fistpump

Neil Black

1. Wrong Neil, Neil.

I know who you were talking to... it's still silly to make a claim and then completely fail to even try to support it. Why are you posting links to evidence that the Earth is old when no one here has claimed that the Earth is young?

Quote:

2. I'm not about to invest a ton of time gathering evidence for you that completely falsifies creationism. If you're so curious, go do the research yourself.

I have. So far I've only seen Young Earth Creationism and straw men torn down.

blargmob

Why are you posting links to evidence that the Earth is old when no one here has claimed that the Earth is young?

CREATIONISM.

C-R-E-A-T-I-O-N-I-S-M.

I didn't "fail" at anything. You're simply too lazy to research yourself.

Typical :P

Matthew Leverton

The Piltdown Man was a hoax, so it follows that evolution is obviously not true. It only took the scientific community what, 40 years, to figure that one out? Have you even been alive 40 years? :o

Everything you know is wrong. Only Derezo has the truth.

NiteHackr

Nah, you used the idea that the earth was created 6000 years ago when the evidence clearly states otherwise as a reason the bible and therefore the idea of a God is wrong. When the bible doesn't say anything of the sort.

I certainly hope that wasn't your only reason for not believing in God or you could be in trouble. ;) The beauty is, the idea that the earth has been around for who knows how long doesn't effect my beliefs one bit. I don't follow any of this world's churches, I only read the bible and believe what it states.

I assume you don't believe things had a start, that they were not created and that matter has existed forever... yet when I claim God has always existed, it gets disputed... hmmm... interesting... ;)

What came first, the chicken or the egg? I know the answer, the Chicken. God created it. :)

23yrold3yrold

You're simply too lazy to research yourself.

The point being made was that we already had.

Quote:

Typical :P

Indeed.

If this is what you've been reduced to, let me help you out. First line of Wikipedia: "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being." Now apparently you have scientific proof that God didn't create everything. Since it's already been pretty much decided by both the theists and the atheists in this thread that there's not a direct logical contradiction between "here's the general scientific timeline of the universe" and "God done it", maybe you'd like to enlighten us all?

blargmob
Neil Roy said:

I only read the bible and believe what it states.

This always puzzles me.

Why? Why believe something that has no barring on any real evidence? Accepting the Bible as truth despite all the contradictory scientific evidence is just like accepting the existence of a magical pink unicorn, or holding faith in a napkin:

(the following image is your logic exactly)

{"name":"603855","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/5\/95f0f92cada1a332eca058ed2899e356.jpg","w":400,"h":400,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/5\/95f0f92cada1a332eca058ed2899e356"}603855

Neil Black

CREATIONISM.

C-R-E-A-T-I-O-N-I-S-M.

Yes? What does that have to do with the age of the Earth? I've already stated that no one is arguing for a young Earth here.

Quote:

I didn't "fail" at anything. You're simply too lazy

I'm too lazy because I pointed out that the evidence you cited has no bearing on what's being discussed right now?

Accepting the Bible as truth despite all the contradictory scientific evidence is just like accepting the existence of a magical pink unicorn, or holding faith in a napkin:

What is the contradictory scientific evidence? I've never seen evidence that contradicted anything but a straw man.

23yrold3yrold

Why? Why believe something that has no barring on any real evidence?

Yeah, Neil. Because the Bible contradicts all historical, geographical and archeological evidence. So there.

Quote:

Accepting the Bible as truth despite all the contradictory scientific evidence is just like accepting the existence of a magical pink unicorn, or holding faith in a napkin

I have faith in napkins. I won't eat lunch without them.

blargmob

Yeah, Neil. Because the Bible contradicts all historical, geographical and archeological evidence.

Bingo!

Neil Black

I believe that was sarcasm.

23yrold3yrold

I believe that was sarcasm.

You have chosen ... wisely.

NiteHackr

Why? Why believe something that has no barring on any real evidence? Accepting the Bible as truth despite all the contradictory scientific evidence is just like accepting the existence of a magical pink unicorn, or holding faith in a napkin:

First off, 23yrold3yrold, I love your humour, you've kept me laughing. Secondly, Jesse, you don't know sarcasm when you read it apparently. ;)

I didn't just pick up the bible one day and decide, hey, I think I'll believe this!

I done a lot of thinking about it over the years, the same questions we all think about. Where we come from, where are we going, why do I exist etc. After much thought and careful contemplation on the subject I came to the conclusion that there is simply too much evidence that an intelligent all powerful creator exists (whatever His name is, I do not know, we label Him God). All one has to do is to look around objectively rather than cynically, and one sees the evidence all around us of an extremely intelligent design, just need to look at our own bodies for that. I won't argue evolution in here, it is a pointless argument, and I already know you are lining up some arguments and sarcasm against me, your little napkin response is the very reason why I don't like to argue my beliefs. But I am merely stating that I didn't come to my conclusions over night. This has been a long journey for me that started around 18 years old when I was thrown in jail for crimes I didn't commit, and through a series of events lead me to end up in the hold where I wasn't allowed to read anything else but the bible. I often wonder about those events and if there was something else at work in my life... but anyhow, I didn't just blindly pick up a book and decide to believe what it said.

I won't argue it, especially with someone who can't carry on an intelligent conversation without throwing in "napkin" images. But that is my story in condensed form. ;)

Thomas Fjellstrom
Neil Roy said:

I came to the conclusion that there is simply too much evidence that an intelligent all powerful creator exists

Please do share.

NiteHackr

Please do share.

No thanks. OR in the words of Jesse Lenney: "If you're so curious, go do the research yourself." ;)

I have confirmed my beliefs to myself to the point where I know God exists. I don't expect you to accept them, I am merely stating how I feel because someone asked.

blargmob
Neil Roy said:

I have confirmed my beliefs to myself to the point where I know God exists.

Wow! You managed to brainwash yourself! Impressive!

{"name":"603856","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/5\/05028df604f1fea14b27374c88e04f2e.jpg","w":894,"h":700,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/5\/05028df604f1fea14b27374c88e04f2e"}603856

NiteHackr

As a side note: notice two people who have avatars from "Christmas" in place still. Did you boys enjoy celebrating Christ's birth? ;D

Oh and Jesse, i don't "ignore contradicting evidence". That would require that you post some "evidence" for me to ignore to start with. :)

23yrold3yrold
Neil Roy said:

OR in the words of Jesse Lenney: "If you're so curious, go do the research yourself." ;)

Oh; well done! The atheists must now harken to the gospel of Jesse! Be inspired by his faith in the existence of contradicting evidence per his forum pictar! Spend an hour a day meditating on the lolcat Bible so ye may post meaningless rhetoric, unshaken by the heathen!

Neil Roy said:

23yrold3yrold, I love your humour, you've kept me laughing.

Yeah, the serious train has pretty much left the thread a page back.

blargmob

Oh no! I celebrate Christmas out of tradition and people think I'm a religious zealot! Whatever shall I do!?

{"name":"603857","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/7\/37135acb4c7151043b3a06a175712071.jpg","w":310,"h":386,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/7\/37135acb4c7151043b3a06a175712071"}603857

NiteHackr

There's yet another misconception. Sex was the original sin, no, it was not. Disobeying God was the original sin. Sex between a married couple is called "holy" in the bible. In fact, Christ at one point recommends that it is better that you get married than to burn with lust. Namely because sex inside marriage is not sinful, but good. It was God that commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, can't do that without sex.

You celebrating Christ's birth (he wasn't actually born Dec 25th, but conceived around that time, he was born closer to the end of Sept, 6 months after John the baptist, his cousin, was born)... anyhow, you celebrating Christ's birth for any reason would be like me celebrating the date Darwin came up with evolution. Seems a tad hypocritical.

Neil Black
Neil Roy said:

In fact, Christ at one point recommends that it is better that you get married than to burn with lust.

I thought that was Paul.

Quote:

you celebrating Christ's birth for any reason would be like me celebrating the date Darwin came up with evolution. Seems a tad hypocritical.

Christmas is a major part of American culture. It's completely possible to celebrate Christmas here without linking it to religion.

blargmob

Too bad I am not celebrating Christmas for the birth of a man that probably never existed, and if he did, he sure wasn't divine. I celebrate out of tradition, with the rest of the family.

Deal with it ::)

NiteHackr

That could have been Paul, I'll have to double check.

As for christmas, I don't celebrate it at all myself, how ironic is that? ;)

Neil Black

a man that probably never existed

You betray your ignorance. It is very probable (as probable as anything else in history) that Jesus existed. You can argue his divinity, but there was definitely a man named Jesus that started a major religious movement two thousand years ago.

blargmob

there was definitely a man named Jesus

Hayzoos?

Thomas Fjellstrom
Neil Roy said:

No thanks.

Thats too bad. I was actually interested in your evidence.

Neil Black

Hayzoos?

Hey, if you want to stay ignorant, go ahead.

blargmob

Hey, if you want to stay ignorant, go ahead.

You have it backwards buddy.

I looked at both sides; I studied their reasons, their evidence, their principles, etc. with objectivity (having no knowledge of anything really previously). After a fair amount of research, reading, and classes, I decided that a mountain of empirical evidence and scientific fact was better than mystical, imaginary figures for weak minded fools that need their hands held throughout their life.

Belief in a man in the sky that watches over our every move and who is responsible for our creation, despite this already being denied and falsified by the general scientific community, is laughable.

Neil Black

I looked at both sides; I studied their reasons, their evidence, their principles, etc. with objectivity

This is obviously not true, if you believe that Jesus probably never existed. It's quite clear that there was a historical figure named Jesus who started a new religious movement (Christianity) about two thousand years ago. Denying that is evidence that you haven't really studied anything.

blargmob

Towards the object of "God", that is.

It's been about 3 years since I read a book (by Victor J. Stenger) that did, in fact, talk about a man that could have been Jesus, but certainly wasn't divine.

NiteHackr

Thats too bad. I was actually interested in your evidence.

I wouldn't mind, but I've already experienced what some of the others are like in here and I'm only interested in intelligent conversation between decent people who aren't rude, sarcastic or otherwise mocking of what I believe.

I have a friend in Norway I have spent many hours discussing this with and what I think, he doesn't believe in God, but he isn't rude, mocking or sarcastic about it. And so I enjoy our talks. In fact, I think we disagree on religion and politics, but I consider him a good friend who is respectful, as I respect his opinions.

Also, sometimes I can get a little stuck as to how to answer something and it will come to me later... so I don't think I would necessarily do God a service. ;) Putting into words what I have researched over close to 30 years in a few sentences just isn't going to happen, and i doubt very much anything I say will pass without being picked apart by evolutionary arguments.... it just goes on forever. And I would prefer to stay on friendly terms with most of the people here. ;)

Thread #606868. Printed from Allegro.cc