Bible Talk

[Tomorrow's Nobody Today]

In the last forum i came from the 'Bible Talk' thread was very heated and topical. So heres it here. Here are the rules:

* Christianity only
* No flaming
* Athiest/other, just post questions and criticisms/hypocrises
* Christians, quote the question/criticism/hypocrises and reply

Im leaning towards christianity so ill do what i can do defend it.

[Rab]

Why is it that the bible teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

[1nf3n0]

the bible states that no man can worship a false idle right?
ok so now god says the devil is real, yes?
there fore worship the devil is not wrong as god himself says he exists.
but...if god does punish you and send you to hell you would be with your master (a kind of heaven for the satanists i suppose) (meet yuor maker lol)
so to punish you he would have to send you somewhere dread full,

here it is the piece de la resistance!! HEAVEN!! SO if your a satanist and you go to hell, BONUS
get punished and go to heaven BLOODY BIG BONUS


ps im an athiest

[Mr.Badguy]

I'm past caring about religion. I'm an Atheist. I do not need to use christianity to make myself feel better about the way we are all born to die.

[SkyFlyer]

Why is it that the bible teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?


Why not?



the bible states that no man can worship a false idle right?
ok so now god says the devil is real, yes?
there fore worship the devil is not wrong as god himself says he exists.
but...if god does punish you and send you to hell you would be with your master (a kind of heaven for the satanists i suppose) (meet yuor maker lol)
so to punish you he would have to send you somewhere dread full,

here it is the piece de la resistance!! HEAVEN!! SO if your a satanist and you go to hell, BONUS
get punished and go to heaven BLOODY BIG BONUS


ps im an athiest


Wow your spelling needs help.

Anyway, worship of the devil is wrong...

As shown in the second commandment. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

As for satanists delighted that they will be in hell...

Well all I can say is that they won't be when they get there.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

Why is it that the bible teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?
The Flood can cause the effects of erosion such as the Grand Canyon in only a couple of months, or it can take millions of years. Scientists often use circular logic on using theoretically correct devices and calculations. It is still not proved that the Earth is billions of years old. It is "proved" by circular theories, and when it returns with conflicting results, the evidence is considered to be flawed and is redone or thrown away.
http://www.answers2prayer.org/bible_questions/Answers/carbon_dating/carbon_dating.html
Read that through, or give up on your argument.

[PieMaster]

*Ahem*
Christianity only?
How obtuse.

[The muffin man]

Am I allowed to completey destroy your view of the world?
Here we go...

Rebuttal 1: The sheer probability of the Earth witnessing the evolution and sedimentation of particles, rocks, life forms, energy, and geological features, alone points out that the Earth MUST be over 2.8 billion years old. Through nuclear dating (the measuring of the half life of more common radioactive isotopes, ie. Strontium 90, Technetium, etc.), most of the particles (which we know came from the sun adrift on coosmic rays to cool into their forms on Earth today) age to more than 4 billion years. 4,000,000,000>10,000.

Rebuttal 2: Skyflyer mentions the second commandment. This alludes to the famous ten commandments that are the fundamental foundation for Judaism. Judaism, folks. You can't use other religions to defend holes in your own.

PS. I'm not saying anything to put down Christianity, I just want a straight argument, without having to resort to intangible, impossible, or simply elusive answers. So far very few people I know have done this.

PPS. Mr. badguy, very nice, you realize why religion was created. To satiate and subdue our fear of death and the unknown.

[Hacky]

Rebuttal 2: Skyflyer mentions the second commandment. This alludes to the famous ten commandments that are the fundamental foundation for Judaism. Judaism, folks. You can't use other religions to defend holes in your own.
Christianity is, in all reality, a form of Judaism. There are simply branches that we differenciate. Jewish Torah is the Old Testiment, they simply don't believe in Jesus Christ as the messiah, and so thus the New Testiment is crap to them.

I was raised in a very Christian home, very... very Christian home. Anytime you mention that the Bible was written by man, not God, and therefore parts might be exagerated, my Father damn near beats the shit out of you (Exaggeration, he never gets physical, just yells). Anyway, back to my point, I was raised in a Christian home, and as I got older I began to see a more scientific way of life. I've done studies into both sides, listened to debate after debate after debate on the topic, and both sides have good opinions.

I personally refuse to speak about my own belief system on the forums becuase of shit it causes. Sometimes, I just like to argue a side of the debate I don't even believe because I know the opinions of that side, and the topic is being one sided :D

However, I will say this, the Bible is a great book of excellent morals, and there are many Christians out there who are good people. Likewise, there are many Christians out there that act like they follow the Bible, but don't, and are a bunch of dicks. If you believe in your heart the Bible to be true, then good for you, but if you are going to preach the word of God, follow them yourself as well.

By the way, PieMaster, I can understand your opinion on that, however he labeled the topic "Bible Talk" not "Torah Talk" or "Al Quran Talk". So, whatever.

[The muffin man]

Christianity is, in all reality, a form of Judaism. There are simply branches that we differenciate. Jewish Torah is the Old Testiment, they simply don't believe in Jesus Christ as the messiah, and so thus the New Testiment is crap to them.


QFT. Most christians I know do not see the blatant similarities between most religions. (I classify them into two categories, Mythological, ie. Cristianity, Judaism, Paganism, etc.; and Philosophical, ie. Taoism, Science, etc.)

[Inactive Cargo]

Rebuttal 1: The sheer probability of the Earth witnessing the evolution and sedimentation of particles, rocks, life forms, energy, and geological features, alone points out that the Earth MUST be over 2.8 billion years old. Through nuclear dating (the measuring of the half life of more common radioactive isotopes, ie. Strontium 90, Technetium, etc.), most of the particles (which we know came from the sun adrift on coosmic rays to cool into their forms on Earth today) age to more than 4 billion years. 4,000,000,000>10,000.Counter Rebuttal 1: We have infinite clumps of matter that are exactly 4 billion years old right now, and even if the chances of those clumps of matter forming into a solar system like ours is 1 in 10^1000, then there's still a certain chance of a solar system like ours forming. Then again, there's a certain chance that a clump of matter will produce the necessary physical/chemical/dark matter reaction to explode the entire universe, and another certain chance that there's a clump of matter that will produce the necessary counter reaction.

The universe is perfectly in balance for us?

[EmeraldFalcon89]

Am I allowed to completey destroy your view of the world?
Here we go...

Rebuttal 1: The sheer probability of the Earth witnessing the evolution and sedimentation of particles, rocks, life forms, energy, and geological features, alone points out that the Earth MUST be over 2.8 billion years old. Through nuclear dating (the measuring of the half life of more common radioactive isotopes, ie. Strontium 90, Technetium, etc.), most of the particles (which we know came from the sun adrift on coosmic rays to cool into their forms on Earth today) age to more than 4 billion years. 4,000,000,000>10,000.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp
Then why do they extract that information from 1 of 139 conflicting areas of data, and when evidence might come up that the Earth is 6 billion years old, the data is thrown away? Man, I thought us Creationists were supposed to be the masters of avoiding data. You guys totally win. :worship:

[The muffin man]

Inactive cargo, I don't see how that is much of a counter-rebuttal. There is not enough energy in any one place to "explode" the universe. The universe will eventually meet its end in either a big crunch (where gravity was created too strong at the beginning of the Big Bang), a total void, ever expanding and cooling (where gravity was too weak and could not hold the universe at equilibrium), or our universe will stop expanding at a happy mean where chemical and nuclear reactions can still ensue. So, our universe isn't necasarily balanced. So far, it looks like it isn't, but hey, we might get lucky. By the way, Hydrogen makes stars, I was refering to radioactive isotopes and their half-lives. Hydrogen is not radioactive. Neither are Dueterium and Tridium for that matter either. (no pun intended)

The data is sometimes thrown away because there may be conflicting variables that were added to whatever they were measuring. In the glory days of geology of the early 1800's (not sure, actually on those dates), scientists found many conflicting measurements on the Earths age, ranging from a mere 4,000 to almost 420,000,000 years old. Today, most of that data has been thrown out because it was not measured correctly or interpreted correctly. Today, we have much more advanced ways of measuring the age of things. An electron can be aged using special relativity to within a few seconds. See: A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It's a good book, I suggest you pick it up at a library sometime.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

Also, might I point out that even if the Bible is false, it accurately depicts conditions that occured at the beginning of time, and scientists to this day have not disproved it. Pretty good for a worldwide, ancient hoax.

[1nf3n0]

so ok another piont for you...
the son of god jesus?
ok now he is the most mportant person in the bible so why does it miss out nearlly 17 years of his life?

[Tomorrow's Nobody Today]

so ok another piont for you...
the son of god jesus?
ok now he is the most mportant person in the bible so why does it miss out nearlly 17 years of his life?You have a point the most we hear of Jesus childhood is another story before this in the Bible:


Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men....the end.

Theres a much more interesting article on the 'actual' early life of Jesus Christ (here (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/jesusbth.html)), using the 'fact' (Im using this word loosely because I havent checked out the research too much) that Christianity 'is a religion with its feet firmly rooted in paganism'.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

It says he grew in wisdom and stature, and his mother treasured everything he said. Not much of a leap to assume that for those 17 years he helped his father out in his carpentry shop and helped his family, if he hadn't have done that, he would not have been honorable or respectful in the Jew's eyes. No credibility.

[1nf3n0]

^but this is JESUS the son of god!! why wouldnt we want to know about him, the savour! (i cant spell) how can most of his life be left out because it was deemed boring?

[EmeraldFalcon89]

^but this is JESUS the son of god!! why wouldnt we want to know about him, the savour! (i cant spell) how can most of his life be left out because it was deemed boring?
Not boring, but not directly conclusive to Jesus's message or purpose.

[1nf3n0]

but his life was sacred and it was all part of his messege!! him alone. his life everything

[HolyOrangeGlory]

As much as I hate to admit it, the Christians have a point here. No matter who Jesus was, in the Bible, he still appeared in mortal form. Which meant that like any other man, he had to grow up and find his purpose before he could undertake action. Same goes with many other people.

That brings up another thing I've wondered. Has anyone noticed that the figure Jesus is exactly like the traditional archetypal hero? Perhaps it was all a story? In fact, I believe that's what the entire bible is, a bunch of stories. So tell me, Creationists, do you believe the Bible is a spiritual guide to life, or a literal one?

[EmeraldFalcon89]

As much as I hate to admit it, the Christians have a point here. No matter who Jesus was, in the Bible, he still appeared in mortal form. Which meant that like any other man, he had to grow up and find his purpose before he could undertake action. Same goes with man other people.

That brings up another thing I've wondered. Has anyone noticed that the figure Jesus is exactly like the traditional archetypal hero? Perhaps it was all a story? In fact, I believe that's what the entire bible is, a bunch of stories. So tell me, Creationists, do believe the Bible is a spiritual guide to life, or a literal one?
Jesus is the traditional hero because he defined what a traditional hero was. On the same theme, have you ever heard someone say "Oh SHIVA" or "Oh BUDDHA!" when something happens? No, it's "Oh God!" Christianity is a heavy basis for many things that are assimilated and assumed in the West.

[Inactive Cargo]

As much as I hate to admit it, the Christians have a point here. No matter who Jesus was, in the Bible, he still appeared in mortal form. Which meant that like any other man, he had to grow up and find his purpose before he could undertake action. Same goes with man other people.

That brings up another thing I've wondered. Has anyone noticed that the figure Jesus is exactly like the traditional archetypal hero? Perhaps it was all a story? In fact, I believe that's what the entire bible is, a bunch of stories. So tell me, Creationists, do believe the Bible is a spiritual guide to life, or a literal one?Did you notice that Tomorrow's Nobody posted this (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/jesusbth.html) as well? I just read it and it's rather interesting, it gives a few more details on Jesus' origins as a 'concept' and growing up.

[Scotty]

Why is it that the bible teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

where does it say that at in the bible?

[Inactive Cargo]

where does it say that at in the bible?http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/ageofearth.htm, not what you're looking for but it sort of says the Bible says the Earth is old.

[HolyOrangeGlory]

Jesus is the traditional hero because he defined what a traditional hero was. On the same theme, have you ever heard someone say "Oh SHIVA" or "Oh BUDDHA!" when something happens? No, it's "Oh God!" Christianity is a heavy basis for many things that are assimilated and assumed in the West.

Actually, No. Jesus resembles heroes told in stories before his existance on Earth. He is a traditional hero in reference to the archetypes set by them. The only reason people say "Oh God" is because it's a common quote and because a shitload of the world is made of Christians.

And please, Christianity may be the basis of many things, but Judiasm was the basis of that. So believe it or not, Christians are essentially evolved Judaists, no matter what anyone says. Whether that evolution has led to something better or worse is a matter of opinion.

Inactive Cargo: I'm gonna go look at that post right now.

[MasterGlitch]

the bible states that no man can worship a false idle right?
ok so now god says the devil is real, yes?
there fore worship the devil is not wrong as god himself says he exists.
but...if god does punish you and send you to hell you would be with your master (a kind of heaven for the satanists i suppose) (meet yuor maker lol)
so to punish you he would have to send you somewhere dread full,

here it is the piece de la resistance!! HEAVEN!! SO if your a satanist and you go to hell, BONUS
get punished and go to heaven BLOODY BIG BONUS


ps im an athiest

1. The Bible says to not worship any false god before the true God, yes. But that does not mean non-existant. You can sinfully idolize existing things. Worshiping Satan is still wrong, even if he does exist.

2. Satan does not rule Hell. Hell was made in order to punish Satan and those angels who followed him when he rebelled against God.


And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur[hell], where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

According to this verse, Satan is also going to be punished in Hell. It is not a place where he rules over people. Satan doesn't truly rule over anything. He is a created being, like humans.

[The muffin man]

Jesus is the traditional hero because he defined what a traditional hero was. On the same theme, have you ever heard someone say "Oh SHIVA" or "Oh BUDDHA!" when something happens? No, it's "Oh God!" Christianity is a heavy basis for many things that are assimilated and assumed in the West.

No, I belive Genji and Odysseus were the first story heroes. And I have often heard, "praise Allah!" or "by Zues!".

[1koni1]

No, I belive Genji and Odysseus were the first story heroes. And I have often heard, "praise Allah!" or "by Zues!".

Very good! And people refer to Helen of troy, and such stories of old to make a point. Very often people mix stories and religions, so it seems pointless to try and whittle down these phrases to a select few

[The muffin man]

Very good! And people refer to Helen of troy, and such stories of old to make a point. Very often people mix stories and religions, so it seems pointless to try and whittle down these phrases to a select few

Here's what I think, and I have said this before: There are two types of religions, mythological, that use fictional or semifictional stories to prove a point and make their religion more appealing to the public (this is the type that is most prone to fundamentalism and misinterpretation) examples of this include Christianity Judaism, Islam, Shintoism, Hindu, and the ancient Mediteranean religions; the second type are philosophical religions, such as Taoism, Zen Budhism, etc.

[System_Zero]

Jesus is the traditional hero because he defined what a traditional hero was. On the same theme, have you ever heard someone say "Oh SHIVA" or "Oh BUDDHA!" when something happens? No, it's "Oh God!" Christianity is a heavy basis for many things that are assimilated and assumed in the West.

Actually Gilgamesh has them beat with the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://gilgamesh.psnc.pl/), he was the one who created the hero archetype and the hero cycle.

And if you've been to Inda you'll hear people priase Ganesha (http://www.koausa.org/Gods/God8.html)or the most parts of Asia you hear Buddha (http://www.serve.com/cmtan/LifeBuddha/buddha.htm).

[EmeraldFalcon89]

Actually Gilgamesh has them beat with the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://gilgamesh.psnc.pl/), he was the one who created the hero archetype and the hero cycle.

And if you've been to Inda you'll hear people priase Ganesha (http://www.koausa.org/Gods/God8.html)or the most parts of Asia you hear Buddha (http://www.serve.com/cmtan/LifeBuddha/buddha.htm).
People give an exclamation as a religious praise, but there's a complete difference between a Muslim saying "Praise Allah," and Avarik going "OMFG."

And I admit, the connection between Jesus and the first hero is awfully weak, but so is the argument that it's strange that Jesus is portrayed as a perfect hero.

[kharabeet]

Is the Devil God's equal or creation?

[System_Zero]

People give an exclamation as a religious praise, but there's a complete difference between a Muslim saying "Praise Allah," and Avarik going "OMFG."

And I admit, the connection between Jesus and the first hero is awfully weak, but so is the argument that it's strange that Jesus is portrayed as a perfect hero.

That's because the first epic was written even before Judaism existed. So naturally as time passes the archetype for the hero cycle evolves.

In the typical hero epic, the her has a virgin or mystical birth, little if any is known about his childhood, decends from a royal lineage, grows up ignorant though in simple, obscure way, has special powers and abilities that are brought out by a series of teachers, has a guiding voice or mentor for the first half of his journey and dise ontop of a high or mountian.

Star Wars is a pretty popular example of the hero cycle. If you ever take literature in school they teach this course. Or you can head here (http://home.comcast.net/~docterspond/Lecture/Understandtales.html)and read the various types of hero archetypes in literature.

[niX]

Is the Devil God's equal or creation?


God, according to the Catholic Catechism, is All Knowing, All Powerful, All Loving.

This can not be true, as god gave his people free will. If he was all knowing, he would forsee the evil that could come of this free will. Some say this is a choice he leaves to us, but if he is all loving, how can he provide us with a chance to do evil? Why would he not simply provide us with only the tools for good and love? To make the world more interesting? No matter how much he loves us, him giving us a choice for either evil or good makes one of the three (All Knowing, All Loving, All Powerful) void. Which disproves the Catholic Catechism. Therfore, why would he create the Lucifer, who was originally an angel of the Beloved, knowing he would turn evil, tempting us all on a day to day basis? If he did not create Lucifer, who did?


This is the main basis for my Athiestic views, along with Occam's Razor:


An example of such an argument would take this form: we have a set of models which does a good job of predicting various aspects of our experience (theories from physics, biology, psychology, etc.). Taken together these constitute a larger model of our overall experience, call it a World model. Elements (sub-models) of this World model which do not contribute to the precision or improve the accuracy of the model should be "cut away" with Occam's Razor. Given this foundation it can be seen that World models including God have an extra element which does not improve accuracy or precision.


These are simply my views, just adding to the thread. Also, I have a Catechism sitting in front of me, do not say that my facts are wrong. I have 15 years of Catholic schools, so that argument does not work. I respect all religions, and personally view athiesm, not believing in a god, as a faith itself.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

God, according to the Catholic Catechism, is All Knowing, All Powerful, All Loving.

This can not be true, as god gave his people free will. If he was all knowing, he would forsee the evil that could come of this free will. Some say this is a choice he leaves to us, but if he is all loving, how can he provide us with a chance to do evil? Why would he not simply provide us with only the tools for good and love? To make the world more interesting? No matter how much he loves us, him giving us a choice for either evil or good makes one of the three (All Knowing, All Loving, All Powerful) void. Which disproves the Catholic Catechism. Therfore, why would he create the Lucifer, who was originally an angel of the Beloved, knowing he would turn evil, tempting us all on a day to day basis? If he did not create Lucifer, who did?
Sorry nix, but that's pretty stupid. He knew evil would come of the free will that he gave to man, but I think he also knew better of the nature of any intelligent creature. They all show extreme defiance to being controlled. How would you like it if everytime you went to go do something bad, say anything that's part of your life; jaywalking, adding a little alcohol to drinks, vandalism, or were truant from school, a police officer just showed up and arrested\ticketed you. He's keeping you from evil, so would you be happy? Of course not, you don't want to be controlled as much as I don't want to be controlled. God knows that we'd never find happiness if he used omnipotent power to control us and keep us from evil. He gave us free will from love, He knew it would create evil, He does not wish to use his omnipotent power to control lives.

[MasterGlitch]

God gives humans free will because otherwise it would not be a true relationship. For a true loving relationship to exist, there must be a choice to not be in that relationship.
That means that without free will, we'd just be controlled beings forced into worshiping God and the relationship would be absolutely meaningless.

[niX]

So God gave us all free will and allowed around 10 million innocent civilians to be slaughtered, all so we can spike our drinks and jay walk?

[The muffin man]

Yep. He did.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

So God gave us all free will and allowed around 10 million innocent civilians to be slaughtered, all so we can spike our drinks and jay walk?
No, because not only human nature, but the nature of any intelligent creature despises limitations. If God was to control every action you made, you would despise him for controlling what you believed to not be bad. He loves you, therefore he lets you make your own decisions. Yes, they may adversely effect other people, but if God was still to control all things that might damage other people, he would be severely hampering your free will.

[MasterGlitch]

It's not so much that we would have despised his limitations on us. It's so that we can have a true relationship with Him. Forced relationships are anything but a true loving relationship. So then, He had to give us free will and the choice of doing wrong in order to preserve that true relationship.

[HolyOrangeDoom]

If God hadn't given us free will, we wouldn't care if he forced us to not do bad things, because we wouldn't be able to, since he controls us. You walked right in to that one.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

If God hadn't given us free will, we wouldn't care if he forced us to not do bad things, because we wouldn't be able to, since he controls us. You walked right in to that one.
In that case we would be no different than an animal. How is a braindead, unintelligent creature supposed to glorify it's Creator?

[The muffin man]

Animals have their own free will, it is just influenced by their instincts. You can see the same thing with humans. On a large scale, humans act and behave in organized pattern similar to that of animals.

[MasterGlitch]

According to the Bible, ALL of creation glorifies God. This includes animals, as well as everything else on this earth and in the universe.

[niX]

That is stupid, just because we do not have the ability to do evil does not mean we would despise our creator for making it so. You are so naive. After you die we will chat and see who is right :) And do not go pulling a Paschal Wager on me, thats laughable as well.

[System_Zero]

The way I see it if god really dose love us we can do all the "bad" we want so long as it isn't the type that will lead up onbeinbg on the news some day and becuase god loves os we'll still get to heaven even if we spit in god's face when we get there. Becuase he gave us that choice to do so.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

That is stupid, just because we do not have the ability to do evil does not mean we would despise our creator for making it so. You are so naive. After you die we will chat and see who is right :) And do not go pulling a Paschal Wager on me, thats laughable as well.
Yes you would, because the inability to do any evil would be lack of much ability. Your brain would have to be severely hampered to be incapable of even accidental evil. I'm very glad I'm not braindead, thank you very much.

[MasterGlitch]

How can someone despise another person, or being, for restricting something that we have no idea even exists?
For example, what if there were a country wherein the citizens had never tasted, seen, or even heard of ice cream. Though the government did. And this government then makes a secret law that says nobody can eat ice cream. How can the citizens hate the government for that? They don't know what the hell ice cream is. It could be anything. They don't even know the law exists. They are completely clueless. How can someone who is absolutely oblivious to something hate someone for restricting that something?


The way I see it if god really dose love us we can do all the "bad" we want so long as it isn't the type that will lead up onbeinbg on the news some day and becuase god loves os we'll still get to heaven even if we spit in god's face when we get there. Becuase he gave us that choice to do so.

Not true. SSSSSOOOOOOO not true. God loves us, yes, but we disobeyed Him. Anything bad that anyone does is basically direct defiance of God. Much like breaking any law is kind of considered defiance against the government. And as such, that must be punished. It's like a parent. If you come up-front with them and don't try to cover up that you did anything wrong and are completely honest, then they will forgive you, but if you don't come clean with it, then you are indirectly covering it up. By not admitting something you are in some way trying to hide that it is there. And that has to be punished, so you get sent to your room or whatever and lose all privileges. It's the same with God. He loves you, but he also has to punish wrongdoings, and only if one admits that they have done wrong and asks for forgiveness will they be forgiven. Without being forgiven, then you are punished by being sent to hell for all eternity. God loves people, but he's also fair and just.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

How can someone despise another person, or being, for restricting something that we have no idea even exists?
For example, what if there were a country wherein the citizens had never tasted, seen, or even heard of ice cream. Though the government did. And this government then makes a secret law that says nobody can eat ice cream. How can the citizens hate the government for that? They don't know what the hell ice cream is. It could be anything. They don't even know the law exists. They are completely clueless. How can someone who is absolutely oblivious to something hate someone for restricting that something?
If God was to deprive us from all thoughts that are evil, he would be destroying our intelligence. Like I said before, evil, selfish, mean-spirited, and vindictive thoughts and actions are bookmarks of intelligence. The more intelligent the being, the more those traits stick out. How would a brainwashed society of Utopians ever bring glory to their Creator? We'd be animals, unaware of anything around us, and dumb as bricks. Evil thoughts spawn many things, not just evil. Man might mean it for evil, but God means it for good.

[kharabeet]

Is the Devil God's equal or creation?
Where did the idea of priests and nuns come from? Did Jesus start it or did it come long after like the bible? Can someone define "priest" and "nun" for me?
Who started the Pope thing?
Why is the pope so bejewelled and stuff when Jesus was renowned for his love of simplicity?
When did the symbol of the fish sign first become the symbol of Christ?

[EmeraldFalcon89]

Is the Devil God's equal or creation?
Where did the idea of priests and nuns come from? Did Jesus start it or did it come long after like the bible? Can someone define "priest" and "nun" for me?
Who started the Pope thing?
Why is the pope so bejewelled and stuff when Jesus was renowned for his love of simplicity?
When did the symbol of the fish sign first become the symbol of Christ?
-The Devil is God's creation.
-Catholicism makes up a lot of procedures that are not mentioned, or discouraged in the Bible.
-Catholicism makes up a lot of procedures that are not mentioned, or discouraged in the Bible.
-Catholicism makes up a lot of procedures that are not mentioned, or discouraged in the Bible.
-The fish sign was a symbol of Christianity during later Roman rule when it was illegal to practice Christianity. It signifies the one fish that fed 5000, it was used as a secret underground symbol of Christianity. People would draw it in the sand to identify themselves as believers. It's pronounced "ick-thoos," not sure how to spell it.

[MasterGlitch]

If God was to deprive us from all thoughts that are evil, he would be destroying our intelligence. Like I said before, evil, selfish, mean-spirited, and vindictive thoughts and actions are bookmarks of intelligence. The more intelligent the being, the more those traits stick out. How would a brainwashed society of Utopians ever bring glory to their Creator? We'd be animals, unaware of anything around us, and dumb as bricks. Evil thoughts spawn many things, not just evil. Man might mean it for evil, but God means it for good.

So are you saying that God is unintelligent? God is perfect, and He does not entertain evil thoughts. He is absolute Purity. Does this mean that God is incapable of intelligent thought, because He does not ever think evil thoughts? I don't think so.
God does not intend our evil ideas and actions for good. Rather, He uses the evil that is present in this cursed world. He makes His plans by taking the present evil into account. It is possible to think intelligently without evil. Evil is not a necessity for ANYTHING. The only thing that was a necessity was the ability to make choices.
Actually, if you think about it, we live in a world cursed by sin and wickedness and general evil. The curse, if anything, hinders us. It prevents us from understanding God's perspective of things, it keeps us from glorifying Him, it condemns us to a world of death and tragedy. Evil causes us to glorify God less, not more. As I said before, the only thing necessary here is choice. Free will. The ability to choose God or choose otherwise. But that does not mean choosing otherwise is a good thing. The choice only allows us to have a true relationship with God, this does not make both choices right or good. Only one choice is right. It is simply the concept of not being forced to bow like little robots, the meaningfulness of choosing God instead of other things, that is important.

[moonshin3]

So are you saying that God is unintelligent? God is perfect, and He does not entertain evil thoughts. He is absolute Purity. Does this mean that God is incapable of intelligent thought, because He does not ever think evil thoughts? I don't think so.
God does not intend our evil ideas and actions for good. Rather, He uses the evil that is present in this cursed world. He makes His plans by taking the present evil into account. It is possible to think intelligently without evil. Evil is not a necessity for ANYTHING. The only thing that was a necessity was the ability to make choices.
Actually, if you think about it, we live in a world cursed by sin and wickedness and general evil. The curse, if anything, hinders us. It prevents us from understanding God's perspective of things, it keeps us from glorifying Him, it condemns us to a world of death and tragedy. Evil causes us to glorify God less, not more. As I said before, the only thing necessary here is choice. Free will. The ability to choose God or choose otherwise. But that does not mean choosing otherwise is a good thing. The choice only allows us to have a true relationship with God, this does not make both choices right or good. Only one choice is right. It is simply the concept of not being forced to bow like little robots, the meaningfulness of choosing God instead of other things, that is important.

*retches* PLEASE tell me you don't mean all that?

How can you believe in someone that causes so much suffering? You have no proof that he exists, do you? Can you even prove it's a "he?"

If you say faith, then you sorely need to take a good look at the world.
If you say the bible, then know that there are such things as fiction books.

[niX]

I am just waiting for the equation prooving god exists.

*Jumps back into corner.

[moonshin3]

I am just waiting for the equation prooving god exists.

Hey, same here. We'll be waiting for a while, bud.

[MasterGlitch]

*retches* PLEASE tell me you don't mean all that?

How can you believe in someone that causes so much suffering? You have no proof that he exists, do you? Can you even prove it's a "he?"

If you say faith, then you sorely need to take a good look at the world.
If you say the bible, then know that there are such things as fiction books.

God didn't cause the suffering for no reason, though. Humanity brought it upon themselves. God just had to follow through with what He said would happen.
It won't go on forever, though. There will be an end to the suffering and death sometime in the future. We aren't told exactly when, but it will happen.

And, yes, I do have faith in the fact that what the Bible says is true. I believe that it is the divinely inspired Word of God. Call me crazy or say I've been duped or whatever you want, but it is something I firmly believe in and will stand by more than anything.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

I love it when people complain (in the context of the existance of God) about God and how he allows suffering. I don't hear much out of you about how God created so much joy, do I Moonshin3? That's right.

Why does he need to take a good look at the world if he has faith in a Creator? Maybe you need to, maybe you need to actually look at the design and intricacy of everything around you, and imagine that evolving from a plant from sheer instinct of survival. I mean, algae survived and survives great as algae, why'd it change? Random evolution? That has just as much of a chance to go backward as it does to go forwards.

[Inactive Cargo]

Nice to see my thread developing so nicely. Time to throw some shit at the fan.


I love it when people complain (in the context of the existance of God) about God and how he allows suffering. I don't hear much out of you about how God created so much joy, do I Moonshin3? That's right.God created suffering for a reason. The next section is largely taken from "The Purpose Driven Life", which is like the Christian book. Here's how Christian it is: I was an athiest, I read this book, now I'm a Christian. The following is from Chapter 25, "Transformed by Trouble" (copying on the fly, expect errors):

God has a purpose behind every problem.
He uses circumstances to develop our character. In fact, he depends more on circumstances to make us like Jesus than he depends on our reading the Bible. The reason is obvious: You face circumstances twenty-four hours a day.
Jesus warned us that we would ahve problems in the world. No one is immune to pain or sulated from suffering, and no one gets to skate through life problem-free. Life is a series of problems. Every time you solve one, another is waiting to take its place. Not all of them are big, but all are significant in God's growth process for you. Peter assures us that problems are normal, saying, "Don't be bewildered or surprised when you go through the fiery trials ahead, for this is no strange, unusual thing that is going to happen to you".
God uses problems to draw you closer to himself. The Bible says, "The Lord is close to the brokenhearted; he rescues those who are crushed in spirit". Your most profound and intimate experiences of worship will likely be in your darkest days-when your heart is broken, when you feel abandoned, when you're out of options, when the pain is great-and you turn to God alone. It is during suffereing that we learn to pray our most authentic, heartfelt, honest-to-God prayers. When we're in pain, we don't have the energy for superficial prayers.
Joni Eareckson Tada notes, "When life is rosy, we may slide by with knowing about Jesus, with imitating him and quoting him and speaking of him. But only in suffering will we know Jesus. We learn things about God in suffering that we can't learn any other way.
God could have kept Joseph out of jail, kept Daniel out of the lion's den, kept Jeremiah from being tossed into a slimy pit, kept Paul from being shipwrecked three times, and kept the three Hebrew young men from being thrown into the blazing furnace-but he didn't. He let those problems happen, and every one of those persons was drawn closer to God as a result.
Problems force us to look to God and depend on him instead of ourselves. Paul testified to this benefit: "We felt we were doomed to die and saw how powerless we were to help ourselves; but that was good, for then we put everything into the hands of God, who alone could save us", You'll never know that God is all you need until God is all you've got.
Regardless of the cause, none of your problems could happen without God's permission. Everything that happens to a child of God is Father-filtered, and he intends to use it for good even when Satan and others mean it for bad.
Because God is sovereignly in control, accidents are just incidents in God's good plan for you. Because every day of your life was written on God's calendar before you were born, everything that happens to you has spiritual significance. Everything! Romans 8:28-29 explains why: "We know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them. For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son."

And that is why we suffer.


Why does he need to take a good look at the world if he has faith in a Creator? Maybe you need to, maybe you need to actually look at the design and intricacy of everything around you, and imagine that evolving from a plant from sheer instinct of survival. I mean, algae survived and survives great as algae, why'd it change? Random evolution? That has just as much of a chance to go backward as it does to go forwards.Why not change? What does it have to benefit from staying as algae. It's got plenty of food and stability (otherwise it wouldn't 'survive great'), so why not evolve, take advantage of its environment? Why, just because everything is intricate and work so well, does there have to be a third party? Why Neaderthal man? They lived for 250,000 years in the same way, before becoming extinct because of the expanding Cro-Magnon (modern day human). If we are all spawned from Adam and Eve, and God gave them the knowledge to speak, you'd think he'd give them the knowledge or thought processes to adapt, unlike the Neaderthal man who lived in caves, and stuck to the hunter gatherer system for 250,000 years. It doesn't take 250,000 years to evolve, Cro-Magnon evolved as he was expanding his territory, adaption, because of his thought-processes.

[HolyOrangeGlory]

First, I've got a question, what are you if you believe in a form of God, but refuse to follow and/or worship it?

Next, I'd just like to say that the explanation of suffering you just gave us is a general analysis of it, backed up with names and other sources from the Bible. I consider that bullshit. Think about that for once, would you? Look at it for a moment. You can see SOME philosophical truth in there. Now look at it's explenation. Wait, I'm sorry, looks like there isn't one. All it's doing is pointing to God, Jesus, and the Bible, and saying "HE DID IT!" I'm sorry, I don't see how that classifies as the reason we suffer.

I have some things to talk about on the subject, but it's really late out for me right now, and I really need some sleep.

I'll reply sometime in the morning, so please postpone any evidence-driven comebacks until then. It would be unfair. Rants and opinions are welcome though.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

First, I've got a question, what are you if you believe in a form of God, but refuse to follow and/or worship it?

Next, I'd just like to say that the explanation of suffering you just gave us is a general analysis of it, backed up with names and other sources from the Bible. I consider that bullshit. Think about that for once, would you? Look at it for a moment. You can see SOME philosophical truth in there. Now look at it's explenation. Wait, I'm sorry, looks like there isn't one. All it's doing is pointing to God, Jesus, and the Bible, and saying "HE DID IT!" I'm sorry, I don't see how that classifies as the reason we suffer.

I have some things to talk about on the subject, but it's really late out for me right now, and I really need some sleep.

I'll reply sometime in the morning, so please postpone any evidence-driven comebacks until then. It would be unfair. Rants and opinions are welcome though.
First question, you're not a Christian. To be a Christian, all you need to do is accept Jesus to be your Lord and Savior, and ask him to come into your heart. That's all.


Also, IC, the Bible never says anything about the absence of adaptation or microevolution. However, God did create every living being, what they did after that was up to the animals. It would be shoddy for a perfect being to create an animal that couldn't adapt to it's enviroment to survive. Frankly, I think it's rather suspicious that there have been a ridiculously few amount of skeletons found to prove that the Neanderthal existed.

[System_Zero]

That'd be great except that Humans aren't descended Neanderthals, they?re actually a different species. Some researchers believe that they where integrated in with humans as there have been skeletons found of Neanderthals with Human characteristics. (Both genetic and cultural)

Overall there have been about 500 individuals found; around half of these are children as well as several hundred thousand stone tools have been found. (Neanderthal stone tools are different from early human stone tools)

[Inactive Cargo]

That'd be great except that Humans aren't descended Neanderthals, they?re actually a different species. Some researchers believe that they where integrated in with humans as there have been skeletons found of Neanderthals with Human characteristics. (Both genetic and cultural)

Overall there have been about 500 individuals found; around half of these are children as well as several hundred thousand stone tools have been found. (Neanderthal stone tools are different from early human stone tools)And when they were being pushed out of their territory by Cro-Magnon man, they moved to Croatia and other high quality, 'first world' countries. There, without the cold climate, they could have evolved in to being closer to modern man, and then interbreeding from there.

[niX]

God didn't cause the suffering for no reason, though. Humanity brought it upon themselves. God just had to follow through with what He said would happen.
It won't go on forever, though. There will be an end to the suffering and death sometime in the future. We aren't told exactly when, but it will happen.

And, yes, I do have faith in the fact that what the Bible says is true. I believe that it is the divinely inspired Word of God. Call me crazy or say I've been duped or whatever you want, but it is something I firmly believe in and will stand by more than anything.

That is the most naive bull shit ever. My atheism was strengthened by the death of my best friend in Katrina. By saying god causes suffering for a reason, you are simply filling in gaps of religion and the mysterious nature of god with "fluff". Dear jesus open your eyes, you are buying into the ideology man created to fill in the very first "gaps" realized way back when they started worshiping animals. Christianity, along with most religions, is just another state of mind one settles on because it provides them with the most comfort possible for a hard life.

Find your comfort somewhere else, say your own life, instead of a book written by common folk whose interpretation changes based on different secular events currently happening.

[Napalm]

This is why I'm eastern orthodox and not any of the protestant religions. Today's mainstream American christianity is full of shit and marketing values. Trying to reach people with sweet talk is low. I know, I've been going to a youth group for two years. I pretty much ignore the force-fed bullshit and follow tradition.
But I wanna say about some of the things said above, these are all my opinions of course.

God lets us do our own thing. He is not our babysitter, he is not our nanny, he isn't here to take care of us and to make sure nothing happens to us. If you were a father, would you shelter your kid all his life? Or would you give him a skateboard, pads and a helmet? Doing the latter would teach the kid. You've no idea how many people died on this planet. Millions, if not billions. And like War of the Worlds said: We have earned our passage on this planet. War is a byproduct of man, not God. Poverty is a byproduct of man, not God. Disease? Disease is a thing of nature. Weapons are a byproduct of man, not God. So the next person that blames God for our suffering, I'm going to bitchslap across the face.

p.s. moonshine, you don't know anything about suffering. kids in third world countries who starve on the streets know suffering. people in africa escaping genocide know suffering. The iraqi population, the bosnian population, the north korean population, all know suffering. So, next time you question God, look around you. ^_^

[niX]

How would god allow himself to give man the ability to make a biproduct, like nuclear weapons for example, or labor camps, etc, if he is All Loving? He is all Knowing, of course too, so how would he not know this would come of his free will? And if he did know, then his ALl Loving crap is out of the window, because an All Loving god does not let his creation kill each other by the millions. I don't care what you all say, thats crap how you all say god "lets us do our own thing".

But Napalm's beliefs are the best I have heard yet, if I had to choose one.

[Napalm]

When brothers fight, why do they fight? Were they born with the thought that they will fight? No. They learned it. So, it's fair to say that humanity learned to create weapons. God is all loving, but once again, he gave us a helmet and pads to go with the skateboard.

[niX]

Too bad skateboarding equipment can't save 10 million people over the course of a few years...Free will is the ability of man to decide what they will do...learning to fight is not the same as fighting itself. It takes you to decide whether to fight, and god gave us that choice to make. Too bad that was a huge mistake. And also, where would we learn to fight in the first place? Somewhere someone had to come up with the idea...

[Napalm]

Yeah exactly. Just like someone came up with the idea to make weapons.

[MasterGlitch]

And even the same way that someone came up with the idea to farm crops, write books, make boats, mine for minerals, process those minerals, etc, etc, etc.

[niX]

And just like Adolf Hitler came up with the idea to re-create tie Aryan Race. I am not saying all of this to disprove the existance of god. I am saying this to point out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is bull shit. This is almost a rant for me, my current religion teacher is so WTF_frustratingly baised (spelling?). But the three main points of the Catechism can not co-exist, thats a fact.

[MasterGlitch]

What are the three points of Catechism?

I'm not Catholic, so I'm not familiar with that term...

[EmeraldFalcon89]

Catholicism is a load anyway. The main theme of Christianity is that your God loves you, all the time, no matter what. You don't need to work and slave your life under tons of guidelines and barriers. Catholicism goes directly against that by setting series and series of procedures and traditions that are direct blasphemy and ignorance of God's direct word. It shouldn't even be classified as a demonination, it should be a totally different religion.

[MasterGlitch]

I've always considered it different. I think of two different things when someone says "Christianity" and when someone says "Catholocism." Just because, like you said, they have all these guidelines and rules and requirements and such that just don't come up when it comes to any other type of Christianity.

[niX]

What are the three points of Catechism?

I'm not Catholic, so I'm not familiar with that term...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (as its main three teachings) :

1. God is all Knowing A
2. God is all Loving B
3. God is all Powerful C

God had to have known of the evil and lives lost due to free will, so he can not be all Loving. therefore
A =/= B

God Loves us unconditionally, and never would a god who loves us so much give us even the ability to choose the death of others, therefore
B =/= A

God can exist as A C or as B C . It is impossible for him to exist in all three (a B C) states.

NOTE TO ALL CATHOLICS: 80 million dollars of your collection money went to hush money three years ago to the molestation victims :)

[MasterGlitch]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (as its main three teachings) :

1. God is all Knowing A
2. God is all Loving B
3. God is all Powerful C

God had to have known of the evil and lives lost due to free will, so he can not be all Loving. therefore
A =/= B

God Loves us unconditionally, and never would a god who loves us so much give us even the ability to choose the death of others, therefore
B =/= A

God can exist as A C or as B C . It is impossible for him to exist in all three (a B C) states.

NOTE TO ALL CATHOLICS: 80 million dollars of your collection money went to hush money three years ago to the molestation victims :)

God can be all loving, knowing, and powerful at the same time. The problem is that we just can't understand the way God works, so it's hard to comprehend. Everything is not as black and white as you're putting it. God has a reason for everything that he allows to happen, it's just that there is no guarantee we'll get it because God works in ways far different from humans.

1. Just because people die, it doesn't mean God doesn't love them. It still saddens Him that people suffer and die, it's just that this all had to happen because of the sin of people.

2. Sure, God knew what would happen. But that doesn't mean it was impossible for the sin to not happen, because of free will. This is another case of something that we just can't hope to comprehend with our very limited minds. Also, if there had been no free will, then humans worshipping God would be meaningless because it would be our only option. God knew this, and so gave us free will.

3. People killing other people is part of that choice that was made to disobey God. Just because God doesn't stop that which we brought upon ourselves doesn't mean He isn't all-powerful. Again, there is a reason that God doesn't stop it. Who are we to tell God that He isn't doing what needs to be done?

Some things cannot be understood by humans. Not everything can be explained, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why is it that people hate it so much when there is something that cannot be explained to them or understood by them?

[Napalm]

The complexity of God is that he is simple, yet we are unable to view him so.

[niX]

Everything is not as black and white as you're putting it. God has a reason for everything that he allows to happen, it's just that there is no guarantee we'll get it because God works in ways far different from humans.
That is the naive bull shit that gets me angry. I do not get angry easily when it comes to religions, but look at that, re-read it. That is simply filling in the gaps in religion (such as people dieing) with fluff, or as previously stated, bullshit.


1. Just because people die, it doesn't mean God doesn't love them. It still saddens Him that people suffer and die, it's just that this all had to happen because of the sin of people. If God was all loving, he would not have even given his people the ability to sin, there is no point in giving them the ability to sin if he does not want us to sin...The statement "God doesn't want to control our lives so he gave us free will" is laughable, don't even try that one.


2. Sure, God knew what would happen. But that doesn't mean it was impossible for the sin to not happen, because of free will. This is another case of something that we just can't hope to comprehend with our very limited minds. Also, if there had been no free will, then humans worshipping God would be meaningless because it would be our only option. God knew this, and so gave us free will. Once again, wrong. If we had no free will, we would not even realize there needed to be another option, so we would NOT think it meaningless to worship god. Simpler explination: If our minds only ever knew the ability to do good, the ability to do bad would never have existed, therefore we would not want something which we do not know exists. So that is not true, MasterGlitch.


3. People killing other people is part of that choice that was made to disobey God. Just because God doesn't stop that which we brought upon ourselves doesn't mean He isn't all-powerful. Again, there is a reason that God doesn't stop it. Who are we to tell God that He isn't doing what needs to be done?What needs to be done? Like a clensing sort of thing? If he is all loving and all forgiving, as the Catholics say he has unconditional love, meaning he forgives no matter what, then why is there a need for a clensing of the earth? And you first statement in 3, the one about people killing other people, we made a choice to disobey god, but why would god (I feel like a wind-up toy repeating itself) give us the CHOICE to disobey him or to harm others? THERE IS NO POINT to give creation this choice. And to think your "feeble little mind" can not understand why he did this is crap.



You are being spoonfed bullshit and enjoying every bit of it. Religion and religious thoughts keep many at ease, like you for example, which is not a bad thing at all. You say "there is a reason" and that thought in itself serves as a cane on which millions lean for support. Yet many can also walk without the superficial cane and without the superficial parental figure waiving his finger at us everytime we are about to do something out of the ordinary.

[MasterGlitch]

If we had no free will, we would not even realize there needed to be another option, so we would NOT think it meaningless to worship god.
(emphasis mine)

That's the thing. It's not that WE would think it's meaningless to worship God, it's that GOD would find it meaningless.



What needs to be done? Like a clensing sort of thing? If he is all loving and all forgiving, as the Catholics say he has unconditional love, meaning he forgives no matter what, then why is there a need for a clensing of the earth? And you first statement in 3, the one about people killing other people, we made a choice to disobey god, but why would god (I feel like a wind-up toy repeating itself) give us the CHOICE to disobey him or to harm others? THERE IS NO POINT to give creation this choice. And to think your "feeble little mind" can not understand why he did this is crap.

Yes, God is forgiving, but only if one accepts His forgiveness will one be forgiven. It's like someone who is willing to forgive you for anything you do, but you have to take a step yourself and apologize and realize or admit that you have done wrong to that person.
And the "cleansing of the earth," as you put it, is necessary because not everyone accepts what the Bible says as truth, and so they do not worship God, and so they do not ask for forgiveness, and on does the list continue. This all ties into free will.

And, yes, choice IS essential for a meaningful relationship.
Which would be a better expression of love toward you; if you got a person and gave them absolutely no choice in "loving" you, and you did not allow them to meet other people and they did not even have a chance to think about the fact that there are other choices and so they just do whatever they're told like a little robot or something? OR would it be more meaningful to you if someone had been able to have those other choices and, in this example, dated other people and saw how the choices worked and then, out of their own will, chose you to be the one they spend the rest of their life with(like marriage or something) because they had seen that you were the one that they truly loved?

To me, the latter would mean much more, and it's the same way with God. He gave us free will and choice so that we would choose Him above all others, even when faced with other paths. Thus, our worshipping of Him is more sincere and meaningful to God Himself.
However, just because there are multiple choices does not mean that there is more than one right choice. And we just made the wrong choice. And so all people must endure this cursed world until the events from the book of Revelation come to pass and the world is made perfect again. This period in time is happening because we must make a choice to follow God and that is how He will have people for that perfect world He has planned. They will be the ones who chose God above all the other things of the world and decided to follow Him in spite of the situation the world is in.

[System_Zero]

That's the thing. It's not that WE would think it's meaningless to worship God, it's that GOD would find it meaningless.


If god wanted to be worshiped then why would he care if something were meaningless? That doesn?t make any sense.

[Typo_the_Lover]

Here, let me put it in to one word
Atheism
If you cant see it, or proove that its there, it doesnt exist.

[System_Zero]

Can you prove a kid's imaginary friend is real? You can see it, and you can't prove that it's there. What's the difference?

[niX]

Uh...you...can't see...an imaginary...friend...and I am not ignorant as to say my atheism is based solely on the fact I can not prove God exists. I base it on the fact it is impossible for him to exist in the current state most religions describe him/her/it, and the fact that religion started as a way of explaining things and developed into monotheism, and we think we are right, as the polytheistic peoples did too. WHat makes us more right? Faith? They had faith...we are just another stepping stone on the path of the creation of religions to satisfy humanity's need for explanation.

[MasterGlitch]

If you cant see it, or proove that its there, it doesnt exist.

There's a funny thing about existence. It is not possible to prove it at all. It's not actually possible to give completely undeniable proof that you truly exist. Or any person or thing for that matter. So that means that all atheists must deny their own existence in order to keep to their beliefs. They must completely believe that nothing exists to be a true atheist. If they believe that they or anything in the universe actually exists, they cannot be atheistic, as found by using your definition of atheism. If you can't prove that anything exists, then you must believe that none of it truly does exist.

[System_Zero]

Uh...you...can't see...an imaginary...friend...

Yeah that was a ypo I just saw right now. Doh!

Existence can vary from a whole wide array of interpolations. The most common being if it?s tangible or has high probability of being tangible, however most atheists don?t seek to be ?true atheists? in similar fashion that Christians strive to be ?true Christians?.

The problem with most religions is that it defies logic and can?t be held up even by theoretical equations. Just because someone says God exists because they or the ?good? book? says so. People like that never view the world in the right context. Others however choose not to follow organized religion in that in contradicts itself or dose everything for the wrong reasons. In that retrospect there is no such thing as a ?true atheists?. Anyone claiming so is just a dumbass.

[Typo_the_Lover]

There's a funny thing about existence. It is not possible to prove it at all. It's not actually possible to give completely undeniable proof that you truly exist. Or any person or thing for that matter. So that means that all atheists must deny their own existence in order to keep to their beliefs. They must completely believe that nothing exists to be a true atheist. If they believe that they or anything in the universe actually exists, they cannot be atheistic, as found by using your definition of atheism. If you can't prove that anything exists, then you must believe that none of it truly does exist.


I FSCKING SAID IF YOU CANT SEE IT, IT DOESNT EXIST. YOU CAN SEE THAT SHIT, YOU CANT SEE FSCKING GOD.

[Hacky]

I FSCKING SAID IF YOU CANT SEE IT, IT DOESNT EXIST. YOU CAN SEE THAT SHIT, YOU CANT SEE FSCKING GOD.
You, sir, are one of the people that really gives a bad name to Ahteists everywhere.

[MasterGlitch]

I FSCKING SAID IF YOU CANT SEE IT, IT DOESNT EXIST. YOU CAN SEE THAT SHIT, YOU CANT SEE FSCKING GOD.

You said "If you can't see it, or you can't prove that it exists, it doesn't." By saying "or" you were specifying that there are two mutually exclusive criterion that can each describe a reason why something doesn't exist, including the fact that there must be complete proof of its existence.
If you're going to get angry like that, know what your statement means before you say it.



Existence can vary from a whole wide array of interpolations. The most common being if it?s tangible or has high probability of being tangible, however most atheists don?t seek to be ?true atheists? in similar fashion that Christians strive to be ?true Christians?.

I didn't say that atheists strive to become "true atheists." I was merely saying that you can't actually and truthfully call yourself an atheist unless you denied all existence of everything.

[niX]

We are running in circles.


Christians say god gave us free will so we would have a more loving relationship

Atheists say there is no point why god would give us the ability to do wrong and kill others


Bottom Line: Until one of us has the equation to prove god exists or does not, this is pointless. All the christians here are most likely christian from birth, so their views will not be able to be swayed. Atheists are hard headed too, so this is very rhetorical.

[Napalm]

The thing about the bible is that it was written by humans. Humans by nature are power-hungry. So it would be natural to add in something to the bible that would affect you in a good way. So...if you don't like men bumming each other, you would add in "thou shalt not bum other men"
I applaud Islam though. I've never seen a person call himself a muslim and question the existance of God. You guys should read the Kuran.

[Hacky]

The thing about the bible is that it was written by humans. Humans by nature are power-hungry. So it would be natural to add in something to the bible that would affect you in a good way. So...if you don't like men bumming each other, you would add in "thou shalt not bum other men"
This is what I've been saying to people for years.

[MasterGlitch]

I applaud Islam though. I've never seen a person call himself a muslim and question the existance of God. You guys should read the Kuran.

Wait... what?
I've never seen someone call themselves a Christian and question the existence of God. Never met a Jew that questioned the existence of God, either. Nor have I ever seen someone call themselves a Hindu and question the existence of God. Buddhists, too. What's your point?

[Hacky]

Wait... what?
I've never seen someone call themselves a Christian and question the existence of God. Never met a Jew that questioned the existence of God, either. Nor have I ever seen someone call themselves a Hindu and question the existence of God. Buddhists, too. What's your point?
So you're saying you yourself, being a Christian, have never once thought about it? Not for a single instant, have you questioned the existance of God?

If you say yes, sorry, but I just don't believe that. I live in one of the most Christian Dominated areas in the country, I know my way around the religion, but everybody doubts. Maybe for a second, but they doubt. They might not question it openly, or often, but there are doubts.

[Napalm]

Wait... what?
I've never seen someone call themselves a Christian and question the existence of God. Never met a Jew that questioned the existence of God, either. Nor have I ever seen someone call themselves a Hindu and question the existence of God. Buddhists, too. What's your point?
I meant questioning god in general, sorry.

[MasterGlitch]

So you're saying you yourself, being a Christian, have never once thought about it? Not for a single instant, have you questioned the existance of God?

If you say yes, sorry, but I just don't believe that. I live in one of the most Christian Dominated areas in the country, I know my way around the religion, but everybody doubts. Maybe for a second, but they doubt. They might not question it openly, or often, but there are doubts.

Well, there are times that you kinda go "Hmm.... what if...?" but that doesn't usually happen out in the open. I've never gone up to someone and said "You know, maybe God doesn't exist. What do you think?" and that's really what I was talking about. It's hard to explain exactly what I mean... Napalm apparently got it, though.

[Napalm]

p.s. Buddhism originated as a way of life, and some buddhists began to worship Buddha and that's where we get the golden belly buddha we see today.

[the_chimpster]

this constant bickering is getting old... and im pretty sure posting like as ass just to get your point across isnt going to change someone's point of view.

i personally have read the bible multiple times and i find that it has many loopholes and gaps in information, which makes it hard to believe.

and on to the point if god really exist.. i personally, am in the middle of this arguement because i find both sides hard to agree with, if there is a god, so what, if there isnt, i could really care less.. im more worried about my everyday life then stuck worring if there is really a god or not

[one]

Oh, this is a nice thread imo. Time to spread some words. I personally dont like the things wich the church (the institution) has done in the past and today (i.E. exorcism,inquisition, stealing money from the poor ppls ; medieval...the person cult bout the pope) thats how the curch was/is. The second thing is the ideology of an god and jesus. Ok Jesus could have lived and if it has been he was a very nice person who enjoyed to help other people. He was a carpenter, just the simply style mof life. Thats where the controversity begins; look at the curches wich have been builded, how big they are the gold and stuff, the most have been builded in the medieval timage, from whom did they got the money to do that (taxes , you know?! the ppls had to pay it or....).So the "bible" or "holy book" has been used to control masses of people (martin luther tried to make something against this) and let them do what some persons want them to do. The holy book has been written by differrent persons, not from good, at timeages where a medium to control masses was needed, So whats the product of all this: people want to believe in god if they cant handle their life by themself (its totally ok) and need something to believe in, but the problem is the person cult (this time im talkin about jesus). Imao, it cant be his vision to build big golden curches and to get taxes from ppls if they want or not, to kill people (but the institution: "curch"has done this). Person cult is just a way to control people (nearly like popstars and movie stars). Many people dont know a shit about what they are believing in, im an antichrist (i only call myself officially like that to provoke and to see if the ppls have tolerance, some peoples wanted to beat me up because of their religion, but this shows that nothing has changed since the medieval times). Some of my opinions...think about it or not....i hope it was interesting anyways.

[MasterGlitch]

If you would type coherently, I would think of a response to that. I just can't understand what the hell you're saying.

[Mr.Badguy]

More to the point if you type coherently I might acctually bother reading your post.

[one]

ok sry, i spend 30 minutes to write this, i dont have the time to rewrite it.

[niX]

One I get what you are trying to say. At least your views are rational unlike so many.

[one]

Yeah, its just a ton of controversy.

[sumpt1nksmrt]

Controversy is life for some. They use it as purpose, in a sense. Humans live for purpose, always. Heh, kinda philisophical.

[niX]

That is kind of a stretch sumpt1nksmrt. But hey, your new, so penis.

[The muffin man]

Good post, one, I can see what you mean and largely agree.



so penis.

I like your new catch phrase niX.http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f245/X1337/dodgy.gif

[Napalm]

Oh, this is a nice thread imo. Time to spread some words. I personally dont like the things wich the church (the institution) has done in the past and today (i.E. exorcism,inquisition, stealing money from the poor ppls ; medieval...the person cult bout the pope) thats how the curch was/is. The second thing is the ideology of an god and jesus. Ok Jesus could have lived and if it has been he was a very nice person who enjoyed to help other people. He was a carpenter, just the simply style mof life. Thats where the controversity begins; look at the curches wich have been builded, how big they are the gold and stuff, the most have been builded in the medieval timage, from whom did they got the money to do that (taxes , you know?! the ppls had to pay it or....).So the "bible" or "holy book" has been used to control masses of people (martin luther tried to make something against this) and let them do what some persons want them to do. The holy book has been written by differrent persons, not from good, at timeages where a medium to control masses was needed, So whats the product of all this: people want to believe in god if they cant handle their life by themself (its totally ok) and need something to believe in, but the problem is the person cult (this time im talkin about jesus). Imao, it cant be his vision to build big golden curches and to get taxes from ppls if they want or not, to kill people (but the institution: "curch"has done this). Person cult is just a way to control people (nearly like popstars and movie stars). Many people dont know a shit about what they are believing in, im an antichrist (i only call myself officially like that to provoke and to see if the ppls have tolerance, some peoples wanted to beat me up because of their religion, but this shows that nothing has changed since the medieval times). Some of my opinions...think about it or not....i hope it was interesting anyways.

Perhaps you should press "enter" every once in a while, just so it's easier on the eyes and doesn't look so frightful to read. Like, paragraphs or something to that nature.

[naomiReturns]

Talking of Bibles, here's a random Bible quote:

"You'll eat meat until it comes from your nose, and your eyes, and your ears!"
-- God (numbers 11:19, I think. Or 19:11)

Carry on.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

Oh, this is a nice thread imo. Time to spread some words. I personally dont like the things wich the church (the institution) has done in the past and today (i.E. exorcism,inquisition, stealing money from the poor ppls ; medieval...the person cult bout the pope) thats how the curch was/is. The second thing is the ideology of an god and jesus. Ok Jesus could have lived and if it has been he was a very nice person who enjoyed to help other people. He was a carpenter, just the simply style mof life. Thats where the controversity begins; look at the curches wich have been builded, how big they are the gold and stuff, the most have been builded in the medieval timage, from whom did they got the money to do that (taxes , you know?! the ppls had to pay it or....).So the "bible" or "holy book" has been used to control masses of people (martin luther tried to make something against this) and let them do what some persons want them to do. The holy book has been written by differrent persons, not from good, at timeages where a medium to control masses was needed, So whats the product of all this: people want to believe in god if they cant handle their life by themself (its totally ok) and need something to believe in, but the problem is the person cult (this time im talkin about jesus). Imao, it cant be his vision to build big golden curches and to get taxes from ppls if they want or not, to kill people (but the institution: "curch"has done this). Person cult is just a way to control people (nearly like popstars and movie stars). Many people dont know a shit about what they are believing in, im an antichrist (i only call myself officially like that to provoke and to see if the ppls have tolerance, some peoples wanted to beat me up because of their religion, but this shows that nothing has changed since the medieval times). Some of my opinions...think about it or not....i hope it was interesting anyways.
That's only Catholocism you're speaking against, not Christianity. Martin Luther did say something against it, he protested against the customs of the catholic church, thus forming the Protestant denomination of Christianity. Catholocism is heavily perverted and relies heavily on humans to tell the people what God wants them to do, such as kill heretics or go on crusades. The Dark Ages happened when God lost control of the church, and humans gained it.

[Napalm]

E. Orthodox > Catholicism ^_^_^_^

[Hacky]

The Catholic church is a joke.

[Napalm]

and they're not very funny.

[Inactive Cargo]

Just a few things I've noticed so far about The Bible and what actually happens in reality:

Mesopotamia (2250 BC/"Epic of Gilgamesh"): Giant flood wipes out mankind because the Gods dislike them. However, they spare Gilgamesh and order him to make a boat etc. Gilgamesh takes the basic building blocks of civilisation with him (Family + Craftsmen, Resources). Gilgamesh survives and rebuilds Sumer.

Bible (Earliest 1400 BC/"Noah's Ark"): Giant flood wipes out mankand because God dislikes them. However, he spares Noah and orders him to make a boat etc. Noah takes the basic building blocks of the Earth with him (Family + Animals).

Mesopotamia (Pre 1400 BC/"Sumerian Kings List"): A huge list of Sumerian Kings. Revered Kings lived for thousands of years (In some cases 30,000).

Bible (Earliest 1400 BC): All revered figures in the Bible (Adam etc) live for hundreds of years (eg Adam and his family lived for around 900 years apiece).


http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/Flat_Earth_Geography.jpg

[audioelite]

i am agnostic, i really have few problems with christianity at all, but the some that i have...

someone, from somewhere, came and created the earth

that just seems crazy, almost like a story you'd read in a book.....

"it's not that i have a problem with god, it's his fan club that i can't stand"

[IsHatMePanTs]

Talking about not believing in anything, or a "true atheist", it's called nihilism and there are people out there who are nihilists. I'm going to stick with the opinion that religion is

"The opiate of the masses"---Karl Marx

but before you even start, I am not a communist. I just believe that religion exists so that people can have something to believe in when things start going wrong. Taking the bible at face value is stupid, for instance do people go around beating their wives to death with their shoes as punishment for adultery? Christian values I can agree with but bible quoting..........no.

And if noah only took two of each animal that would result in genetic degradation. All the animals alive today would be inbred to the last.

[audioelite]

I just believe that religion exists so that people can have something to believe in when things start going wrong. Christian values I can agree with but bible quoting..........no

i totally agree:clap:, that in fact, is the only problem i have with it all, well that and people who take it too seriously

[stevie wonderz]

Some quick questions... Can god create a rock that even he cannot pick up?

Explain the tower of babble incident..

Noah's ark?

And how could it be we are all from a singular ancestor? (adam) and wouldn't genetic defects have corrupted his descendents, unless he was made perfect, in which all diseases and genetic defects came from people's environments (or them adapting to them?)



Also another brain teaser... If god is responsible for all life that was created... is life that man creates considered his doing? (read below)

If you take simple molecules, hydrogens, nitrogens, carbons, hydroxides, et cetera In an aqueous solution (water, or a liquid for example) combined with some form of energy that can be produced from friction or what not. You can produce more complex carbon-carbon bonds, things such as amino acids.

Amino acids naturally polymerize to form proteins. With condensation reactions you will bond the carboxyl group of one amino acid to the amino group of another forming peptide bonds.

You also have nucleotides, formed from basic phosphates, sugars, and a nitrogen base. Nucleotides form nucleic acids. The nitrogenous bases usually differ in purine and pyrimidine, and bond with the opposite. Nucleic acids are also held together by phosphodiester bonds, the bonding of a phosphate group of one nucleotide to the hydroxide of another.

These nucleic acids from long complex strands, and are responsible for the creation of RNA and DNA with a complementary strand, they bond through the purine-pyrimidine pairs.

When you split the complementary strands of RNA or DNA, you have a template that is perfect for copying. With the help of enzymes, RNA and DNA can be catalyzed to replicate themselves. RNA is far more reactive, so it is usually though of as the first self replicating molecule.

these strands contain the information necessary to transcribe amino acids and such that can create the proteins necessary for the basic structure of a cell.

If you look at a simple prokaryotic cell, it really is just some DNA and RNA surrounded by a lipid membrane (lipids being simple molecules that vary in function and usually are made of isoprenes, phosphates, hydrocarbons, etc)

many will argue at what is considered as life, and what is lifeless, but this is the natural progression that evolved us into the complex multicellular life forms that we are today.





If you have not read a hitchiker's guide to the galaxy I'll elequently put this


"The argument goes like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn?t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don?t. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn?t thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.




Also, I think that hardcore christians are absolutely UNRULY at times -> will take bible word for word... I'm thnking if muslims did that.. we would either have no islam religion on this earth or we would all be islam (jihad comes to mind...)

Links of that though possibly exaggerated, but all possible view points is nice

Found this after watching the show ''trading spouses'', if you have seen this particular episode, you'll understand what I mean by Hardcore christian

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6225867209&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

Also Found this... Quite hilarious considering what is portrayed is actually seen in the bible.... Though to take it that literally well... I'm just sticking with ''it's in the bible!''

http://www.petergodly.com/episodes.html


That's all for now, hope you get a good read out of it and I'm quite sure I haven't broken any rules yet so.... Enjoy!

[MasterGlitch]

Some quick questions... Can god create a rock that even he cannot pick up?

Explain the tower of babble incident..

Noah's ark?

And how could it be we are all from a singular ancestor? (adam) and wouldn't genetic defects have corrupted his descendents, unless he was made perfect, in which all diseases and genetic defects came from people's environments (or them adapting to them?)

1.) This is a common question asked by people trying to prove that God is a paradox that cannot exist. But the fact is that you are all thinking of God wrong. God does not have to be mathematically infinitely powerful. He merely must be really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY powerful. He must only be powerful enough to be able to do what He needs or wants to do.
Now you're probably going to say "But then He's not ALL-powerful, right?" But that is also not true. As long as God is able to be as powerful as previously stated, and there is nothing else in existence that is as or more powerful than Him, He still must be called all-powerful.

2.) The Tower of Babel is simple. God wanted to stop the peoples' heretical beliefs of building a tower to become God or become like God, and so He made many languages for them to speak so they could no longer cooperate in the way they had previously, and thus the Tower would not be finished. From there, the people with the same languages spread out and grouped with each other. Being able to change the way people speak kind of comes with the whole "all-powerful" thing. God made every facet of what being a human is, so why couldn't he change some things in their brains to make them speak differently? It's like changing something in a program you wrote.

3.) For Noah's Ark and the 40 days and nights of Earth-flooding rain, there are scientists who believe that since everything was dry desert and there was very little rainfall, there was quite a lot of rain stored in the sky that simply didn't fall. Clearly there had to be a lot of water on Earth to support our life, but if most of it did not fall and merely stayed stored up, this would clearly be possible.
While I'm at it,

And if noah only took two of each animal that would result in genetic degradation. All the animals alive today would be inbred to the last.

The Bible actually talks about that. Back in those days, the gene pool was purer than it is today, and the world was also less populated. Whether it be humans or animals. There was a time, though, that God forbade incest because the earth was populated and diverse enough. Before that, people did marry within their families, and so the same goes for animals.

4.) Yes, Adam WAS made perfect! So was Eve! Yes, disease and defects and such DID come from the outside effects in the world. It's pretty simple.



Also another brain teaser... If god is responsible for all life that was created... is life that man creates considered his doing? (read below)

If you take simple molecules, hydrogens, nitrogens, carbons, hydroxides, et cetera In an aqueous solution (water, or a liquid for example) combined with some form of energy that can be produced from friction or what not. You can produce more complex carbon-carbon bonds, things such as amino acids.

Amino acids naturally polymerize to form proteins. With condensation reactions you will bond the carboxyl group of one amino acid to the amino group of another forming peptide bonds.

You also have nucleotides, formed from basic phosphates, sugars, and a nitrogen base. Nucleotides form nucleic acids. The nitrogenous bases usually differ in purine and pyrimidine, and bond with the opposite. Nucleic acids are also held together by phosphodiester bonds, the bonding of a phosphate group of one nucleotide to the hydroxide of another.

These nucleic acids from long complex strands, and are responsible for the creation of RNA and DNA with a complementary strand, they bond through the purine-pyrimidine pairs.

When you split the complementary strands of RNA or DNA, you have a template that is perfect for copying. With the help of enzymes, RNA and DNA can be catalyzed to replicate themselves. RNA is far more reactive, so it is usually though of as the first self replicating molecule.

these strands contain the information necessary to transcribe amino acids and such that can create the proteins necessary for the basic structure of a cell.

If you look at a simple prokaryotic cell, it really is just some DNA and RNA surrounded by a lipid membrane (lipids being simple molecules that vary in function and usually are made of isoprenes, phosphates, hydrocarbons, etc)

many will argue at what is considered as life, and what is lifeless, but this is the natural progression that evolved us into the complex multicellular life forms that we are today.

I do not have the scientific knowledge to argue this.




If you have not read a hitchiker's guide to the galaxy I'll elequently put this


"The argument goes like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn?t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don?t. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn?t thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

There is proof that God exists. It's evident in the world around us. The complexity of life and all the components that make up the Earth and the universe. The way the Earth can perfectly support life for us. The great diversity of organisms on Earth. These things don't just happen by chance. So, yes, there is proof that God exists, it's just that people don't want to accept it as such.



Also, I think that hardcore christians are absolutely UNRULY at times -> will take bible word for word... I'm thnking if muslims did that.. we would either have no islam religion on this earth or we would all be islam (jihad comes to mind...)

Links of that though possibly exaggerated, but all possible view points is nice

Found this after watching the show ''trading spouses'', if you have seen this particular episode, you'll understand what I mean by Hardcore christian

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6225867209&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

Also Found this... Quite hilarious considering what is portrayed is actually seen in the bible.... Though to take it that literally well... I'm just sticking with ''it's in the bible!''

http://www.petergodly.com/episodes.html


That's all for now, hope you get a good read out of it and I'm quite sure I haven't broken any rules yet so.... Enjoy!

The lady from Trading Spouses was not a hardcore Christian, she was a psychotic, bipolar, moronic, freakshow bitch who happened to be a Christian. Or... call herself one, at least.

As for the Peter Godly thing, I must say it was kind of funny. But as for the whole idea of taking the Bible too literally, he was using stuff from the Old Testament. If we followed everything the Old Testament said, we'd have to call the church and get the pastor over to our houses and remove ourselves from human contact any time we found mildew on a window sill of our house. Clearly, Christians don't do that. That's because we're not Jews. We don't burn sacrifices, we don't have the Sabbath, we don't need to be circumcised, we don't do any of that stuff.

Well, that's my two cents on this whole subject.

[Inactive Cargo]

As for the Peter Godly thing, I must say it was kind of funny. But as for the whole idea of taking the Bible too literally, he was using stuff from the Old Testament. If we followed everything the Old Testament said, we'd have to call the church and get the pastor over to our houses and remove ourselves from human contact any time we found mildew on a window sill of our house. Clearly, Christians don't do that. That's because we're not Jews. We don't burn sacrifices, we don't have the Sabbath, we don't need to be circumcised, we don't do any of that stuff.I guess we don't need creationism either, because it's in the Old Testament.

[IsHatMePanTs]

Caught for a good one! The gene pool was purer? And how would that be? I reckon it wouldn't work. Not for long anyway. I actually can't believe you're standing up for creationism. No offence now, it's just that it's always seemed so stupidly flawed.

[stevie wonderz]

O got another good one for ya... in genisis (or however you spell it) it says And ?Because you have done this,
cursed are you among all animals
and among all wild creatures;
upon your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.


Does this mean that the snake moved around via hopping on its tail before moving on its belly? LOL please explain

[Inactive Cargo]

Does this mean that the snake moved around via hopping on its tail before moving on its belly? LOL please explainWhat the fuck is this? It's commanding him to go on his belly (like he already did so) and do whatever.

Please, it's not that hard.
And on with your life you shall go!

Does this mean that you didn't have a life to go onto? LOL please explain

[stevie wonderz]

Cargo, I'm somewhat confused -> was he already on his belly when god stated this? but if he was already, then why the hell would he say he's cursed to do what he's been doing since creation? was he gonna be upgraded?

[Inactive Cargo]

Cargo, I'm somewhat confused -> was he already on his belly when god stated this? but if he was already, then why the hell would he say he's cursed to do what he's been doing since creation? was he gonna be upgraded?It's like saying to a knight:
You are cursed amongst the living!
Go forth on your horse and with your sword,
and attend to my biddingHe already has his horse and sword, it's just saying 'Go! Be a knight'

[stevie wonderz]

Ok, so by implication, god knew the snake would trick adam and eve into doing what he did, and after doing that he commanded him to go forth bringing evil upon creation? damn snakes...

[niX]

Where did we get the creation story again? Was it written by common man? Ah...yes....but lets put our entire life into devoting ourselves into a man made book. Bingo!

[Inactive Cargo]

Where did we get the creation story again? Was it written by common man? Ah...yes....but lets put our entire life into devoting ourselves into a man made book. Bingo!It was written by Moses, at God's command. More liberal Christian theologists believe it was written by three people (a monk and two priests, I think).

Along with all the other stuff I posted about parallels between Mesopotamia (2750 BC) -vs- the Old Testament (1400 BC), there's also a smaller civilisation that lived out in some tropical region of the Middle East. The Middle East at this time wasn't the barren 'Allah Jihad!' shithole it is today, but it wasn't exactly the best place to be. This smaller civilisation had plenty of water, plenty of food, plenty of leisure time. Basically it became a trading partner with Mesopotamian civilisations, because of all the fruit they could produce because of the plants that they could grow. *BUT* these people weren't all fun and games. They were one of the first civilisations documented that performed rituals ... on snakes.

Let's add this up:

Mesopotamia (2750 BC): A good life, with plenty of food, water, and diverse wildlife. Snakes are a core part of the religion.

Garden of Eden / Bible (1400 BC): A good life, with plenty of food, water and diverse wildlife. The snake eventually forms a core part of the religion.

[niX]

I am confused. What museum is the original Old Testemant held in? I mean the one written and signed by God and Moses.

[Inactive Cargo]

I am confused. What museum is the original Old Testemant held in? I mean the one written and signed by God and Moses.This (http://www.v-a.com/bible/old-testament.html) is 100 years *after* Moses wrote it, so I'm assuming it's still pretty 'pure', with all the flat-Earth stuff and all (before the Vatican filtered it out)

[niX]

Woah, so your saying that a man by the name of Moses wrote that? And we know it is straight from God? So billions of people spend their lives worshiping this God?!

[Inactive Cargo]

Woah, so your saying that a man by the name of Moses wrote that? And we know it is straight from God? So billions of people spend their lives worshiping this God?!Don't be stupid, of course it's straight from God! It even says so!

[MasterGlitch]

I guess we don't need creationism either, because it's in the Old Testament.

That is not at all what I meant. There were/are laws and ideals set in the Old Testament such as making animal sacrifices, not working on the Sabbath for any reason, etc. that no longer pertain to Christianity, because if they did we'd be Jews. The laws, ideals, and rules set in the Old Testament pertain to what is called the Old Covenant, which is also known today as Judaism. The ideals set by Christ for the Christians in the New Testament are what is known as the New Covenant, and it is what replaced the Old Covenant and thus it is what Christians follow. Not EVERYTHING in the Old Testament should be scrapped, though.

Think about it this way, suppose there was a history book printed that showed very biased views toward events in history. Clearly this is not a good, credible book and it should not be given to schools and such. But just because that book was scrapped because of its biased views, does that mean we should regard all of the factual historical things it talked about? No, just the views it showed.

It's a crude analogy, but I think it gets my point across.



The gene pool was purer? And how would that be? I reckon it wouldn't work. Not for long anyway. I actually can't believe you're standing up for creationism. No offence now, it's just that it's always seemed so stupidly flawed.

There's also a little thing called "Perhaps there were no negative side effects to inbreeding, but God made those negative side effects later."
The same problem exists in the evolution theory anyway. Supposedly, all life started from ONE common ancestor. Now, if inbreeding has always caused major problems in the offspring of the parents, then how would there not be problems when it came to breeding of any organisms? Was it perhaps that the gene pool was somehow purer? It's really the only logical explanation, unless you have a better one.

And you know, the same thing stands from my point of view. I can't believe you're standing up for the evolution theory. That's always seemed stupidly flawed to me.
Funny fact: Charles Darwin himself said that his theory of (macro) evolution could not work. When the person who thought of something says it's false, it's time to start questioning why you believe it. Just a thought.



Does this mean that the snake moved around via hopping on its tail before moving on its belly? LOL please explain

Ever thought of the possibility that snakes had legs before then, and that God removed the legs of all snakes as part of the curse?

[sumpt1nksmrt]

valid point. can we imagine someone who doesn't believe in God, but respects the idea enough to live as if they do?

[Inactive Cargo]

Funny fact: Charles Darwin himself said that his theory of (macro) evolution could not work. When the person who thought of something says it's false, it's time to start questioning why you believe it. Just a thought.Source please.

[MasterGlitch]

I unfortunately do not remember the exact source of that particular bit of information, but I do know that it is a credible source and at the time I discovered it I had several other people verify its credibility.

[IsHatMePanTs]

There is proof that God exists. It's evident in the world around us. The complexity of life and all the components that make up the Earth and the universe. The way the Earth can perfectly support life for us. The great diversity of organisms on Earth. These things don't just happen by chance. So, yes, there is proof that God exists, it's just that people don't want to accept it as such.



And what says that its not just a one-in-a-billion chance, because how would you know the difference? Would everything look different if god hadn't made it?

And on the whole thing about "come from one person", do you do biology? Have you heard of something called "biodiversity"? If we all came from the exact same ancestors there would be no biodiversity. We would all be the same. So you're telling me god didn't want that so he created down syndrome, parkinsons, cancer, and all those other genetic defects just to stop us looking the same?

hang on. you're saying snakes are cursed? Or maybe they're just descendants from dinosaurs. How come the bible doesn't mention them?

[Inactive Cargo]

I unfortunately do not remember the exact source of that particular bit of information, but I do know that it is a credible source and at the time I discovered it I had several other people verify its credibility.I'll understand if it was spoon fed to you in Sunday School and you don't want to let up about it.

Then again, if it is true (I spent half an hour Googling and didn't find anything - just a load of crap about how birds disprove the theory of evolution and this (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm)), then there'd be no reason for the Vatican to take a stand and say "Evolution is wrong". But they don't. Why? Because they can't. Why? Because they have no credibility. Why?


http://static.flickr.com/22/32828367_dbc1a24333.jpg

The Earth is the center of the Universe? Wrong.
The Earth is flat? Wrong.
Some greater being created all life? Right?

Do you think that the Vatican is going to go up there and say, after being slaughtered before for backing the Bible when it comes to what's actually at the center of the Universe (not us, and nor does the sun revolve around the Earth), and when it's been slaughtered before for backing the Bible when it comes to what the actual shape of the Earth is, that it's going to put it's fist down and say, "FUCK SCIENCE!"?

The simple fact is that you lose when you back the Bible. What does the Bible say about the origins of life? It says God created us. Guess what? Wrong.

[MasterGlitch]

hang on. you're saying snakes are cursed? Or maybe they're just descendants from dinosaurs. How come the bible doesn't mention them?

Snakes were cursed along with everything else that inhabits the earth.
The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs because it never lists all the animals that have ever existed. There was no reason to talk about dinosaurs, so why would the Bible mention them?

----------------------

The Bible never once says that the Earth is in the center of the universe. Nor does it say the Earth is flat. In fact, the Bible even mentions the Earth being a globe.

Those are ideas that were presented by people, and thought of by people, with no help from the Bible.

And you know what? I don't care about the credibility of the Vatican, because I'm not Catholic.

[IsHatMePanTs]

can you give me a reference for the bible saying the earth is a globe? Because that was figured out way after the bible if I'm right. Bravo for your belief and all but when you die will you come back and tell me you were right?

[Inactive Cargo]

The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs because it never lists all the animals that have ever existed. There was no reason to talk about dinosaurs, so why would the Bible mention them?Yeah, they just have the slight tendancy to wreak havoc and eat people. Nothing to be mentioned there.


The Bible never once says that the Earth is in the center of the universe. Nor does it say the Earth is flat. In fact, the Bible even mentions the Earth being a globe.I'll hold off on the center of the universe thing for now, but the Bible does describe the Earth as being a circle (http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-22.htm) (not a sphere).


Those are ideas that were presented by people, and thought of by people, with no help from the Bible.What's stopping the Bible from being an idea presented by people, and thought of by people, to explain how they got here? It's human nature. The Aboriginals in Australia used 'Dream Time' to explain the creation of the Earth and them. They had no Jewish/Christian/Catholic influence. The American Indians had their own belief system, and again, they had no Jewish/Christian/Catholic influence. Why did God choose the Jews and nobody else? Why did they become 'His people'? Nobody else had experienced Judiasm before then, why now?


And you know what? I don't care about the credibility of the Vatican, because I'm not Catholic.Either way, the religion is derived from the Old Testament, but that's nothing to worry about, because it's old.

[Yreal]

There are flaws in bible but these flaws could have simply been bad translation. In every religion and even in evolution and physics there is almost never a complete and perfect answer there is always something that dos not fit in as neatly as the rest.

?For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries? quote from Professor Frank Tipler mathematician and physicist

[genesis[OFT]]

For the love of sweet Jesus, don't tell me you polluted everyone here too Todd...FFS

Edit@genesis[OFT]: Sorry for reviving an old thread...where's the delete post button? :eek:

[TravTech]

He hasn't really poluted anyone. Nobody here takes him all that seriously. But it doesn't stop him from trying.

And trying

And trying

And trying

And trying

And trying

And trying

And trying...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/R0G3R/ForumJunk_2/Smilies/yawn.gif

[crooked]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/R0G3R/ForumJunk_2/Smilies/yawn.gif

why is that smilie so crudely cut out, trav?

[TravTech]

I swiped it from a forum that had a white background. Direct transfer from their hosting into my photobucket. I never took the time to clean it up. I've got a few like that. Maybe someday when I'm REALLY bored...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/R0G3R/ForumJunk_2/Smilies/shocking.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/R0G3R/ForumJunk_2/Smilies/yucky.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/R0G3R/ForumJunk_2/Smilies/baby.gif

[The muffin man]

There are flaws in bible but these flaws could have simply been bad translation. In every religion and even in evolution and physics there is almost never a complete and perfect answer there is always something that dos not fit in as neatly as the rest.

?For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries? quote from Professor Frank Tipler mathematician and physicist

The thing is, the bible doesn't even begin to explain natural phenomena past what was needed to be explained to the people of the time. If God really created it don't you think he would've including guides on calculus and physics to aid us in the far future? Or at least S/He could supply with a new volume. This leads literary historians to believe that the bible was simply created by man to explain the phenomena of his day.

Think about it; it makes sense.

[MasterGlitch]

The thing is, the bible doesn't even begin to explain natural phenomena past what was needed to be explained to the people of the time. If God really created it don't you think he would've including guides on calculus and physics to aid us in the far future? Or at least S/He could supply with a new volume. This leads literary historians to believe that the bible was simply created by man to explain the phenomena of his day.

Think about it; it makes sense.

Ever heard of letting people figure things out on their own?
The Bible explains how the universe began and specific events. That's it, aside from various rules and things. It's not a handbook of how the world works by any means.

[Inactive Cargo]

The Bible explains how the universe began and specific events. That's it, aside from various rules and things. It's not a handbook of how the world works by any means.No it doesn't, it lays the framework for a political agenda that delivers half a billion dollars to the Vatican each year as well as giving it unprecedented power. The Bible doesn't explain anything, all it says is God created heaven and the stars. That's not an explanation.

[The muffin man]

Then what's the point?

The bible does not even begin to do the job of science.

[genesis[OFT]]

Then what's the point?

The bible does not even begin to do the job of science.
Here's a cookie.


No it doesn't, it lays the framework for a political agenda that delivers half a billion dollars to the Vatican each year as well as giving it unprecedented power. The Bible doesn't explain anything, all it says is God created heaven and the stars. That's not an explanation.
Ssshhh.

[The muffin man]

He ninja'd me. :(

[TravTech]

Then what's the point?

The bible does not even begin to do the job of science.


LOL

There only seems to be a few here that think:

A. It's trying to.
B. It's supposed to.

And it's always the same people that are trying to disprove it, who seem to think that.


But hey, set them up (premises) and knock them down. That's how MY e-pen0r got so big. :cool:

[.:FroznReign:.]

I think the gap between the Bible and modern science is very far from being closed. If science already gives us definite answers on its own, what part does the bible play?

[naomiReturns]

The Bible plays the part of a text to look at in a detached and intellectual way to understand how the values of our ancestors can be kept and adjusted. That's it.

Science doesn't give definite answers, either.

Both science and religion are constantly evolving (hah!) to suit the times and recent discoveries.

[KichigainoKawaru]

The Bible plays the part of a text to look at in a detached and intellectual way to understand how the values of our ancestors can be kept and adjusted. That's it.

There is such a thing as Scholasticism, or rather the belief that religion and science can build off of each other and do not have to be in conflict. I believe this is so. Also, it is impossible to simply to study the bible and try to take only the good values and morals from it without truly believing in the basis, otherwise you will have no way to defend them.


And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately recieve it with gladness; and have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

P.S. Save us all, The Muffin Man is arguing about religion again!

[The muffin man]

What do you mean it does not give definite answers?

I can't see where you're coming from with this. Science is perhaps as definite as anything can be.

[Mooters]

I find this quiet funny from "The Hitchhickers guide to the galaxy".
This book is great and humorus.

Of course, the babel fish isn't a real fish.

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly
useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proff of the nonexistence of God."

The argument goes something like this:

God: "I refuse to prove that I exist."
God: "For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing"
Man: "But, 'The babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own argument, you don't. QED."
God" "Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that,'" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Man: "Oh, that was easy" And for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

"Where God went wrong"
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c43/AMGF1/bathroom1.png

"And some of more God's mistakes"
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c43/AMGF1/bathroom2.png

42 everyone! I thought it would be really funny to post this. A few Christian may be mad, but I dont care. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!? lol, joiking. :(

[TravTech]

I think the gap between the Bible and modern science is very far from being closed. If science already gives us definite answers on its own, what part does the bible play?


That's assuming any "gap" should or even needs to be closed.



What do you mean it does not give definite answers?

I can't see where you're coming from with this. Science is perhaps as definite as anything can be.


LOL We've been through this in the other thread. There are still many unanswered questions, and many theories based upon other theories.

[Kinetix]

Oh god, this is gonna get real bad real fast.

[TravTech]

I'm not against science or any thing. Hell I've been an engineering and computer tech for most of my life.

But as I've said before, I've learned enough to know that I certainly don't have all the answers. Which is why I get such a kick out of these peeps just starting out in life that are SO sure they do.

But "definite" isn't exactly a word I'd use to describe science. Hell we don't even really know what causes some of our most common weather phenomena.

Could it be god bowling? ;)

The other part I like is when those arguing against something come in with their own unestablished premises just so that they have something to shoot down. So far it's only been those who are convinced that there is no possibility of a higher power speaking of this so called "gap" that can't, be but needs to be filled for some reason.

[Mooters]

Remenber everyone.

Science +porn + respect + tolerance - religion = tomorrow

[Inactive Cargo]

But "definite" isn't exactly a word I'd use to describe science. Hell we don't even really know what causes some of our most common weather phenomena.Example please. I'm not saying it doesn't exist I just picked my brain and couldn't think of anything that we don't have a reasonable explanation for.

[TravTech]

When you're able to predict when & where a tornado will touch down, you'll be considered the god you've always imagined yourself to be.

Just one example, but there are even some other more common phenomena I vaguely remember from a show I saw the other night on the History channel. But since I'm unsure at the moment, don't feel like researching at the moment, and on my way to bed, I'll let the tornado one stand for now.

Edit: Besides "reasonable" isn't acceptable. If I remember right, the word was "definite". :D

[genesis[OFT]]

Trav...now it's MY turn...:D


Oh god, this is gonna get real bad real fast.
http://www.mindmagma.com/mpunk3/owned/buckle_up_thread.gif

[TravTech]

Can I help too?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/R0G3R/ForumJunk_old/atheiist.jpg

:D

LOL

For teh newer folk FYI: I'm not necessarily a proponent of any god or religion. Just having fun with these "science only" guys phailing to prove their postiion. To me, they're both uncertainties that I really doubt either side could prove definitively. But I'm also open minded enough to accept both possibilities.

[genesis[OFT]]

Just having fun with these "science only" guys phailing to prove their postiion.
Here's a free 12piece set of Steak Knives!

Firstly, I'd like to point out one of the (un)official rules to not get upgraded into the main forum - obviously some may have slipped through unexpectedly.

From http://www.1337.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6585:


Waltz into the Sharkpool like a cocky asshole, thinking your tough shit. You people mean nothing around here until you've proven yourselves worthy.

Secondly, as 'The muffin man' has said, the Bible does not even TRY to take the place of science. To be frank, science can be dumbed down to a form of man's curiosity. The Bible, back in its 'hey day', was the 'science' element in the world...right before the Microscope, Periodic Table, etc was developed.

I guess, all we have now is old 'Science' (The Bible) battling it off with the newer version (Modern day Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Earth Science). Coming from different eras, yes, they touch on different topics. Man 1000 years ago couldn't give a damn if the hairs from the ass of a West Indian Gnat could cure heart disease. That wasn't what was important back then. The Bible was more relevant then than it is now. Nowadays, Nuclear Fusion, Ion drives and the like are more important than the morals, ethics and how to live a good life.

I guess it's who you want to believe. I could add another sentence as my summary, however, i fear that'd just be asking for trouble, so you summarize what you think yourself.

That is all.

[KichigainoKawaru]

But I believe in Biology and in the Bible...

[The muffin man]

LOL We've been through this in the other thread. There are still many unanswered questions, and many theories based upon other theories.

I know. But compared to anything else, science, specifically mathematics and physics are the only things in the world that give definite answers.



I'm with Kevin: it's alright to be whatever religion you want, just know that it doesn't explain anything beyond "why you are here" (questions I believe have no merit in intellectual circles and should be reserved for the crack-philosophers).

[genesis[OFT]]

But I believe in Biology and in the Bible...
That's the last straw. I'M TELLING DAD. :p

Seriously, If I took that literally, I do too, not so literally, then I'd challenge some parts of Biology. That's a different path through the forest though.

[Inactive Cargo]

']Seriously, If I took that literally, I do too, not so literally, then I'd challenge some parts of Biology. That's a different path through the forest though.But you already say "evolution is not real", even though there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. But hey, it's not like you're challenging a corner-stone of biology, right? Oh... wait.

[genesis[OFT]]

But you already say "evolution is not real", even though there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. But hey, it's not like you're challenging a corner-stone of biology, right? Oh... wait.
I'm sick and tired of arguing with you. You're Atheist. I'm Christian. Want a medal?

[Rab]

SCIENCE CAN'T BE RIGHT BECAUSE OF CARBON DATING BEING WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!

[MasterGlitch]

SCIENCE CAN'T BE RIGHT BECAUSE OF CARBON DATING BEING WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!

What's with this idea that Christians aren't allowed to believe that any part of science is correct? It's not like we're refuting Cell Theory or something, we're arguing against evolution which is merely a theory in progress that gains its "proof" through inferences and second-guesses. I can't count the number of times some scientist has gone on the news with some new primate-like skull they recently discovered and begins to explain the migration patterns, mating habits, and precise ways that its species evolved over time(keep in mind that it's the only remnant of that species they ever found).

Oh, and the world doesn't have to be millions of years old, either. If the Bible is right(and I personally think so) then the Great Flood happened, and I think 40 days and nights of rain covering the whole earth and water covering even the highest mountains would be enough to start some fossilization and make the earth seem much older than it is.

[TravTech]

LOL it's true, though I never really looked at it like that.

It's like they find one more piece of a bazillion piece puzzle, then change the part that's already put together in order to make it fit / support their on going theories. Just wait until they figure out that all of the species were supposed to turn left at Albuquerque.


But I don't really support creationism in it's strictest religious sense.

[The muffin man]

What's with this idea that Christians aren't allowed to believe that any part of science is correct? It's not like we're refuting Cell Theory or something, we're arguing against evolution which is merely a theory in progress that gains its "proof" through inferences and second-guesses. I can't count the number of times some scientist has gone on the news with some new primate-like skull they recently discovered and begins to explain the migration patterns, mating habits, and precise ways that its species evolved over time(keep in mind that it's the only remnant of that species they ever found).

Of course you can't argue cell theory. That's because science beat down christianity will a continuous barrage of solid proof for hundreds of years. You and your bretheren have ALWAYS been reluctant to bow to new discoveries, truths, ideas.


Oh, and the world doesn't have to be millions of years old, either. If the Bible is right(and I personally think so) then the Great Flood happened, and I think 40 days and nights of rain covering the whole earth and water covering even the highest mountains would be enough to start some fossilization and make the earth seem much older than it is.


You have no idea about fossilization, do you? Fossils take time to mineralize (hint: fossils are not bones, they are mineral replacements that have occured OVER TIME that have SLOWLY been replaced by minerals) and occur in sediment layers that could only have occured very slowly.

Also remember that the fossil record is incomplete, so arguing only a secondary source of evidence for evolution isn't going to do much.





No, Trav. You know why science will ultimately prevail and benefit humanity in a way religious explanations never can? It's applicable. Let's see you use creationism to develop a new drug for a developing virus that changes all the time. Guess what? You can't. The evidence is everywhere. Even if you say it is still wrong, it works. Creationism cannot say the same.

[MasterGlitch]

No, Trav. You know why science will ultimately prevail and benefit humanity in a way religious explanations never can? It's applicable. Let's see you use creationism to develop a new drug for a developing virus that changes all the time. Guess what? You can't. The evidence is everywhere. Even if you say it is still wrong, it works. Creationism cannot say the same.

There you go again with the "you believe in God and what the Bible says so therefore you must also denounce all facets of scientific knowledge" argument. Creationism has not developed any new drugs or anything, but the evolutionary theory has not done that either. People who study those viruses and ways to cure them through scientific research develop new drugs, not a firm belief in evolution.
Evolutionary theory is only a small part of science. We're not Amish here, science is a very useful thing that should continue to develop because it helps mankind, but that also doesn't mean that it holds all the answers to life, the universe, and everything.

Let's recap.

Atheist belief:
Science = Answer to everything right down to where life began.
Religion = Exact opposite of all that is science; seeks to destroy all scientific research and thought.

Christian/Religious belief:
Science = Very useful tool for determining how the world around us works.
Religion = Answer to how life began and where it ends up; resides beside science, not in replacement of it.

We're not out to rid the world of science. We're out to show that science does not hold the answer to EVERYTHING.

[System_Zero]

Oh, and the world doesn't have to be millions of years old, either. If the Bible is right(and I personally think so) then the Great Flood happened, and I think 40 days and nights of rain covering the whole earth and water covering even the highest mountains would be enough to start some fossilization and make the earth seem much older than it is.

You clearly have no clue about how sedimentary layers work. If there was a global flood, there would be a even distribution of sediment all over the world at a consistent depth like the K-T Boundary.

Another interesting note is that there is not enough water in the world to flood the world completely. If you melted all the ice caps and dumped all the moister in the atmosphere you still could not flood the entire planet. On top of that, all the water would drastically alter the atmosphere that the air would drown you.

[TravTech]

No, Trav. You know why science will ultimately prevail and benefit humanity in a way religious explanations never can? It's applicable. Let's see you use creationism to develop a new drug for a developing virus that changes all the time. Guess what? You can't. The evidence is everywhere. Even if you say it is still wrong, it works. Creationism cannot say the same.


WTF? :wow:

Did you happen to see in that exact same post where I said that I don't support creationism? But you're asking me to now argue in favor of it?

And you're using this support of mine that you imagined, to support you own argument?


Have you been talking to Lazz?


Here's a hypothetical for you. If religion hadn't been around to benefit and support man in the very early beginning, would man still be around to further this science to benefit himself? Would we even be at the same level of mental development or as advanced as we are now?


Oh & Zero, back then it wouldn't take the whole world. We didn't have satellites and global communucations back then. So just a small portion of the earth being flooded out could be recorded as "the whole world". :P

[The muffin man]

There you go again with the "you believe in God and what the Bible says so therefore you must also denounce all facets of scientific knowledge" argument. Creationism has not developed any new drugs or anything, but the evolutionary theory has not done that either. People who study those viruses and ways to cure them through scientific research develop new drugs, not a firm belief in evolution.
Evolutionary theory is only a small part of science. We're not Amish here, science is a very useful thing that should continue to develop because it helps mankind, but that also doesn't mean that it holds all the answers to life, the universe, and everything.

Let's recap.

Atheist belief:
Science = Answer to everything right down to where life began.
Religion = Exact opposite of all that is science; seeks to destroy all scientific research and thought.

Christian/Religious belief:
Science = Very useful tool for determining how the world around us works.
Religion = Answer to how life began and where it ends up; resides beside science, not in replacement of it.

We're not out to rid the world of science. We're out to show that science does not hold the answer to EVERYTHING.

Evolution provides the mechanism of understanding to develop drugs for viruses.

How 'bout that?

"Would you like a drug to treat the flu seen in teh 16th century that is next to useless, today, or would you like a drug that treats the evolved version seen today?"

Science can answer how life began, it cannot answer 'why'. That is its only short coming. Many scientists henceforth think that these questions hold no weight and are generally dismissed as having no effect on humanity and should be kept to one's own thinking to decide. IN OTHER WORDS: believe whatever you want as according to Why, this includes Christianity, Judaism, Ism=lam, Buddhism, but know that the mechanism of life are defined by science.

ps. Those are not my beliefs. You may know some with such beliefs who call themselves athiest, but I am not of them.

[TravTech]

Your viral "evolution" is and example of "Evolution B".

"Evolution A" (the kind that would create wholey new species) is still an unobservable theory. :P

[The muffin man]

"Evolution A" as you call it, (macroevolution to the not-so-well-informed) is a collection of evolutionary traits stemming from microevolution (evolution B). We can observe the divergence of species of plants in farmland through sympatric speciation caused by polyploidy. This means that chromosomes do not segregate correctly resulting in an organism with 2n the number of chromosomes. This prevents it from mating with others of its species and so it self replicates. This brings about many recessive traits within this new population and the new breed of plants begins to look starkly different and even function differently from its predecessor. It, in fact, becomes a different species.

The macroevolution usually argued against is called gradualism. This is small mutations resulting in new species over a long time. This is not supported fully by the fossil record and most scientists of the day have discarded it for "punctuated equilibrium", which says that large mutations in the structural genes of an organism create great changes in a small amount of time in between large calms where little macroevolution occurs. There is fossil support and genetic support for this theory.

[TravTech]

What??? Scientist gave up one theory and adopted another? You mean they were wrong again??? And all this time?"

Maybe creationism IS good for something afterall... If it made the scientific world re-think and discard an incorrect theory. :thumup:

LOL

[.:FroznReign:.]

Heh. I agree. Science is a battle for absolute answers, one changing the world's view on another. The many followers of Creationism don't need absolute answers to get them to believe it.

[The muffin man]

What??? Scientist gave up one theory and adopted another? You mean they were wrong again??? And all this time?"

Maybe creationism IS good for something afterall... If it made the scientific world re-think and discard an incorrect theory. :thumup:

LOL

No. There were always two sides to the debate. It's just that punctuated equilibrium has gained the upper hand when it was discovered that certain genes have different probabilities of programmed mutations.

Scientists can argue amongst themselves, too, you know.

And if you don't stop going after stupid little things like this and actually debate with me rather than having your little kf party in here where the discussion is supposed to be serious, <-(Key word) I will have no will to answer your posts in such discussions.

[TravTech]

Oh teh imagined horror!

You do your share of "skirting" around things in these "debates" mister. :P

How is it a "stupid little thing" anyway, when you just basically supported one of the biggest points I was making all along? (at least in the "proof there is no god thread")

[The muffin man]

Oh teh imagined horror!

You do your share of "skirting" around things in these "debates" mister. :P



I admit I do, as well. Nobody is perfect, but we can try.



when you just basically supported one of the biggest points I was making all along? (at least in the "proof there is no god thread")

Which: that scientists can argue amongst themselves or that it is essentially seperate from religion?

[TravTech]

Neither, that science is an uncertainty.

[System_Zero]

So is religion. But science has far less uncertainty than most religions.

So then by your logic if it's not 100% certain it's total rubbish? Even though the things like the bible are as about as certain as a Lazz posting something that dosen't make him look like an incoherent nutt job?

[Denial]

Yes science is uncertain, but science isn't so much a religion as it is a method of analyzation. Science acknowledges that not everything is presently known; but it is content to simply leave it at that, instead of supplying an alternate answer, until a rational explanation is found.

It just happens that adhering to this method precludes belief in a formal religion as we know it.

[TravTech]

So is religion. But science has far less uncertainty than most religions.

So then by your logic if it's not 100% certain it's total rubbish? Even though the things like the bible are as about as certain as a Lazz posting something that dosen't make him look like an incoherent nutt job?

If you paid attention to the board instead of just playing "Johnny come lately" with the last post in the thread, you'd see that all along I've been saying that they're BOTH uncertanties. And that my point is,

From the "Proof there is no God" thread:


Q: So, what do you call someone faithfully devoted to one uncertainty that derides and berates a faithful devotee to another uncertainty?


A: Hipocrit.

The level of repitition required on this board is staggering. It makes me wonder how we ever had a discussion on my old board of 200.000.

P.S. I'm not supporting religion, nor am I a religious person. (for the 20th time).

[System_Zero]

You also miss the point. One is less uncertain that the other. Now do we go with the group that's only certainty comes from a book and taking the words of others or the group who's certainty comes studies and researching their understandings?

Science is knowledge, and like knowledge we're always learning even out of the classroom. So if we're always finding a new piece of the puzzle then we must update that image of the puzzle. We have a general idea of what the complete picture looks like but at least it doesn't fill in the gaps with false hopes and empty promises.

[The muffin man]

Trav, science is only uncertain in what is becoming of new discoveries. 95% of established science is spot on 100% oof the time. It's the developing 5% that causes it, in your words, to be an uncertainty.

Even if it is uncertain, the level of which is on another plane than religion's own. (BOOM, triple pun)

[TravTech]

Regardless of the level, they're both uncertainties. Therefore they both require faith to one extent or another. My question is, what makes one person's faith any more valid than another's?

Besides, as you well know, science is theory based upon theory based upon theory. It would only take one small realization or new discovery at the atomic level to cause a rewrite of half the shit we think we "know".

[The muffin man]

All those established discoveries work in our favor already, so it really wouldn't matter.

It'd be just like rewriting an equation of limits with infinitesimals. You're saying the same thing, just in a different way.

Both "faiths" are valid, it's just that science is applicable.

[TravTech]

Both "faiths" are valid, it's jsut that science is applicable.


Just another judgement on your part, that you are in no position to make for others.

[The muffin man]

Applicability is not opinionized. We use science in the form of technology everyday.

Expected answer: well people pray everyday, too.

Praying does not bring you food, a home, the internet, or a longer life (debatable, but it seems that negative self-praying has some effect on probability).

[TravTech]

More opinions. :P


Explain to me then why placebos have been "scientifically proven" if positive thought is not applicable.

[The muffin man]

I'm just saying that there have been studies of outside influence of prayer where it had a negative effect.

Positive thought through placebo would have to be praying yourself into a delusional state. If you're a fanatic, I guess you could make it work, but the mental stress from occupying such a standpoint would probably counteract it.


Science could probably figure this out, but morals and ethics of course prevent doctors from actually carrying out the tests needed.

[TravTech]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that appears to be a "duck, dodge, and weave" that even Muhammed Ali himself would be proud of.

;)

[The muffin man]

So you WANT me to give a couple of christians and a couple of atheists cancer and see who lives the longest? :P

[KichigainoKawaru]

Lotsa money says the athiests convert on their deathbed :9. Also, I think that the reason why science and religion have such a difficult time working together is that science is completely based on logic and tangible truth, while religion is completely based on belief in miracles that haven't been seen in thousands of years. Those morals and ethics that stop scientists from carrying out those tests are inherently taken from religion.

Also:
Show that Christianity can overcome cancer (Christian > Cancer) and prove it.

Mr T. = Christian Given
Mr T. > Cancer Given
Christian > Cancer Transitive Property
Q.E.D.

I just thought that was fun

[Hazaro]

Religion is a great basis for a moral and polite society.
Make people believe they'll get punished by some unseen, all knowing being.
And they will listen ^_^
It's how Old Testament worked =_=

[KichigainoKawaru]

Jesus' part in the New Testament (at least as told in Mark) played out like an episode of some Trigun/GTO-reminiscent anime. Which is probably why Jewish people don't watch anime (jk TMM)

[The muffin man]

Whoa, that was a strange comparison.

[System_Zero]

Religion is a great basis for a moral and polite society.
Make people believe they'll get punished by some unseen, all knowing being.
And they will listen ^_^
It's how Old Testament worked =_=
Which is the basis of why most Evangelical Christians are unable to understand or comprehend living without a god. That they are only "nice" because they have to be and fear "consequences" and not becuase they want to or becuase it's for the good of scocity as a whole.

[naomiReturns]

Lotsa money says the athiests convert on their deathbed :9. Also, I think that the reason why science and religion have such a difficult time working together is that science is completely based on logic and tangible truth, while religion is completely based on belief in miracles that haven't been seen in thousands of years. Those morals and ethics that stop scientists from carrying out those tests are inherently taken from religion.

Also:
Show that Christianity can overcome cancer (Christian > Cancer) and prove it.

Mr T. = Christian Given
Mr T. > Cancer Given
Christian > Cancer Transitive Property
Q.E.D.

I just thought that was fun
Ethics aren't always religious. Often religion is based on ethics and philosophy instead, as with ancient Greeks.

Also: If they DO convert on their deathbeds, it'll be a calculated decision based on Pascal's Wager.

[KichigainoKawaru]

But ethics and morals can be traced back to religion. Today, society may define them with laws, but those laws can be traced back to the bible and other religious texts. Otherwise, one has no basis for right/wrong or Good/Evil.

Also: If they DO convert on their deathbeds, it'll most likely be a result of a: A. Feeling of the presence of God as they die, B. Reaction based on fear, C. "Why not" attitude, or not very probably, D. A calculated decision based on Pascal's Wager

P.S. What happened to your sig TMM?

[System_Zero]

It got 1337-er

[naomiReturns]

But ethics and morals can be traced back to religion. Today, society may define them with laws, but those laws can be traced back to the bible and other religious texts. Otherwise, one has no basis for right/wrong or Good/Evil.

Could you back that up?

Religion was used to explain the world. Ethics (good/evil) came about with social structure and personal responsibility for others, which was before that.

Religion is unlikely to change a man who feels no obligations without it.

[Denial]

But ethics and morals can be traced back to religion. Today, society may define them with laws, but those laws can be traced back to the bible and other religious texts. Otherwise, one has no basis for right/wrong or Good/Evil.

Also: If they DO convert on their deathbeds, it'll most likely be a result of a: A. Feeling of the presence of God as they die, B. Reaction based on fear, C. "Why not" attitude, or not very probably, D. A calculated decision based on Pascal's Wager

P.S. What happened to your sig TMM?

You've just hit on a major debate topic, good luck proving that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Morality

etc (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=secular+morality&btnG=Google+Search)

[MasterGlitch]

Which is the basis of why most Evangelical Christians are unable to understand or comprehend living without a god. That they are only "nice" because they have to be and fear "consequences" and not becuase they want to or becuase it's for the good of scocity as a whole.

That's not true. I don't try to be a good person because I have to, I do it because it's right.
I also don't live in fear of messing up, either. It happens. I don't think God is going to throw lightning bolts at me or something if I do mess up. The Bible teaches about God's un-ending forgiveness, so I don't have some deep fear of catching the Black Plague if I lie or something.
My moral beliefs do stem from my religion, but that doesn't mean I would suddenly stop trying to abide by my morals if God suddenly stopped existing.

[Denial]

Regardless of the level, they're both uncertainties. Therefore they both require faith to one extent or another. My question is, what makes one person's faith any more valid than another's?

Besides, as you well know, science is theory based upon theory based upon theory. It would only take one small realization or new discovery at the atomic level to cause a rewrite of half the shit we think we "know".

Prelude: I know this is a little late,(one page ago) but as I read this I was thinking "Wow, Trav's going provoke some people with that one." Yet alas, no replies came; so here's a response of my own.

What makes one person's faith more valid than another's?

The ideas that science adherents require faith, as it is designated here, to believe in are fundamentally more reliable, AKA valid, than those of the traditionally religious. The conclusions that the scientific have come to accept, that are not completely proven, are based upon logical and rational thought. According to logic, these ideas are the best possible and most likely explanations for the situation. Therefore, if you accept logic (For example, that 1 thing + another thing = 2 things; or that if something is true, it can't be false, etc.) as accurate, then science's faith is more valid.

[System_Zero]

That's not true. I don't try to be a good person because I have to, I do it because it's right.
I also don't live in fear of messing up, either. It happens. I don't think God is going to throw lightning bolts at me or something if I do mess up. The Bible teaches about God's un-ending forgiveness, so I don't have some deep fear of catching the Black Plague if I lie or something.
My moral beliefs do stem from my religion, but that doesn't mean I would suddenly stop trying to abide by my morals if God suddenly stopped existing.
While you may be that way, a large majority tend to say otherwise. Most are unable to grasp the idea of a world with no god and in doing so would be the collapse of everything as they know it. I've had a few of them tell me that if there is no god what's stopping us from going total ape shit and doing anythign with out consequence (See Secular ethics). The thing is more Evangelicals are more concerned of the consequence in the afterlife than they are about their day to day life.

[The muffin man]

Okay. This is it, boys. I'm here to prove that science is distinctly different from religion... here goes:

All swans are white --until you reach Australia and discover black swans paddling serenely. For science built on induction, the counterexample is the ruffian waiting to mug innocent hypotheses as they pass by, which is why the scientific method now deliberately seeks him out, sending assumtions into the zone of maximum danger. The best experiments deduce an effect from the hypothesis and then isolate it in the very context where it may be disproved. This falsifiability is what makes a hypothesis different from a belief --and science distinct from other towers of opinion.

[TravTech]

Prelude: I know this is a little late,(one page ago) but as I read this I was thinking "Wow, Trav's going provoke some people with that one." Yet alas, no replies came; so here's a response of my own.

What makes one person's faith more valid than another's?

The ideas that science adherents require faith, as it is designated here, to believe in are fundamentally more reliable, AKA valid, than those of the traditionally religious. The conclusions that the scientific have come to accept, that are not completely proven, are based upon logical and rational thought. According to logic, these ideas are the best possible and most likely explanations for the situation. Therefore, if you accept logic (For example, that 1 thing + another thing = 2 things; or that if something is true, it can't be false, etc.) as accurate, then science's faith is more valid.

So faith in science is more valid than faith in any religion? Or just that wacky Christian stuff?

Also, there are a few variables to consider. Like the believer's interpretation of their religion. For example, not all people believe the 7 "days" it took for creation were 24 hour periods as we know them. There are many things in the bible the science proponents try to invoke literally in order to make their case that were never meant literally.

Or for example their ingrained belief system might convince them that there are miracles all around them everyday, like the miracle of birth or a sunrise may be proof to some of greater powers at work. Not to mention how many people believe their prayers are answered. If I pray to hit the lottery and do, how are you going to prove that it wasn't an answered prayer?

To me there's just too many intangibles in the makeup of people's belief systems to invalidate them solely based on logic. Logic is science's bag, to many there are things more important than logic. Hell if he couldn't defy logic, he wouldn't be much of a god now would he?

Also, with the rate that new theories replace old ones in science I don't know if I'd exactly call it reliable. Sure it's handy and is the best explanation available of many things. But to me much of it's still like a house of cards.

[Inactive Cargo]

Also, there are a few variables to consider. Like the believer's interpretation of their religion. For example, not all people believe the 7 "days" it took for creation were 24 hour periods as we know them. There are many things in the bible the science proponents try to invoke literally in order to make their case that were never meant literally.Not all people believe the 7 "days" because the Vatican had to go running all over the place to try and get Genesis to be compatible with what actually happened. If you go back 1000 years and ask people how long it took to create the Earth, they will say "7 days", and if you ask them to specify how many hours it took they'll say "168".

Besides, if you're going to argue that a day was a different length of time back "in the beginning", then you'll have to consider that Adam lived for something like 960 years, but we know that this is practically impossible. So the day is shorter because time is faster in that time period. However, "in the beginning", the day would have to be longer.

[TravTech]

LOL

I'm not saying the revolved slower back then, there was no earth prior to creation so how would you measure a day anyway?

I'm suggesting the whole "7 day" thing was basically written with artisitic liscense, or may have even been meant as a parable, allegory, or metaphor. Like much of the bible you guys like to take literally but in actuality are meant as parables.

[The muffin man]

They're meant as perables as soon as the writers figured out, "Oh shit, plotholes! O_o"

[Inactive Cargo]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The muffin man again.

[TravTech]

LOL

[MasterGlitch]

Religion = :thumdown:

Yes, thank you for this wonderful, in-depth, compelling insight. As well as this horrid excuse for a thread revival.
You = n00b

[Napalm]

You know...the society back then was high off of shrooms all the time. So yes, the bible is the real thing to them.

[Mr.Badguy]

Yeah, you know the bible was written by a prehistoric smackhead right?

[Kinetix]

Yeah, you know the bible was written by a prehistoric smackhead right?

I am going to laugh when some dude in his late 40's wrote the christian bible to be a best selling sci-fi thriller that millions of people now follow like mindless drones.

[Hacky]

I am going to laugh when some dude in his late 40's wrote the christian bible to be a best selling sci-fi thriller that millions of people now follow like mindless drones.

Yeah, you are going to laugh when that is discovered............ how? The Bible's been around for a long, long time. Not like we're searching for any new hidden things behind the writing of the Bible.

[Inactive Cargo]

Yeah, you are going to laugh when that is discovered............ how? The Bible's been around for a long, long time. Not like we're searching for any new hidden things behind the writing of the Bible.Yeah, the smart people figured out it was bullshit ages ago and gave up and became awesometheists.

[Napalm]

IC have you even read the bible, or any part of it?

[Inactive Cargo]

IC have you even read the bible, or any part of it?I have. I pulled apart Genesis and showed where it was plagarised from. Remember (http://www.1337.com/forums/showpost.php?p=236235&postcount=35)?

[Kinetix]

Yeah, you are going to laugh when that is discovered............ how? The Bible's been around for a long, long time. Not like we're searching for any new hidden things behind the writing of the Bible.

10 or 1 million the whole book could still be some sick prank. The chances are slim, but alot of the bible made no sense/sounded like total bullshit to me so my opinion is biased and to answer your question I had to read the bible cover to cover for a project a few years back based on the bible and it still didn't make sense and or sounded like total bullshit.

If we aren't looking for hidden meanings than what are the jews doing turning it into a future predicting crossword puzzle (http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm)?

[Inactive Cargo]

If we aren't looking for hidden meanings than what are the jews doing turning it into a future predicting crossword puzzle (http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm)?Fucking Jews. The Jews are responsible for all the war in the world.

[Hacky]

I understood completely what you were trying to say. But you said you would laugh when it turns out to be blah blah blah. Well, it's quite impossible to prove that that is what it is, and so that "laughing" you "would" do won't ever come.

You can not believe in the Bible all you want, but just the way you said it it seemed as though you were expecting something like that to actually be proven at some point...

[Spectersoul]

LOLOLOL SLAYER!