This an easy way to discuss creation/evolution while keeping the general discussion section focussed on slinging

I am a Christian I believe in a six-day creation (about 6,000 years ago) a flood (about 4,400 years ago) and I believe that the Bible is the inflallable word of God.

What are your views?

I believe that the Bible was written figuratively and much of it is subject to interpretation.  I believe that the process of evolution is logical and correct, but that doesn't mean that God didn't put it all into motion.  I don't think that science and God or religion have to be mutually exclusive.  I also believe that no one will really know for sure until their final curtain call.  I respect Dan's right to his faith and would fight to the death to defend it.  I'm also envious of people like Dan who have such solid, unshakable faith.  I was once a very devout Roman Catholic, and it's very comforting to firmly believe that you know the solution, have the answer, or however you wish to put it.  I honestly wish that I still felt that way.  Life would be easier.

I believe in the universe being billions of years old, evolution, and that the Bible is just a book (with some good parts, I`ll admit that).
timann

Rat Man wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:21pm:

I believe ...  Life would be easier.

What you said!  

The bible is a collection of stories written, in the best case, 60 - 100 years after the fact
(the new testament stories) ; worst case thousands of years after the events (old testament) ...

So true stories ... probably not ... not even the best of them .... truthful stories .... absolutely.

If God is omnipotent, God does not need a priesthood or worshipers ... religion is not for God; it is for beings.

I believe that the Bible is the history of the fertile crescent as told by people of the Jewish faith. The creation story is speculation (since no one could have witnessed their own creation), and none of it was written at the time of it's happening. The disciples who followed Jesus believed him to be holy enough that instead of completely disavowing him after he was crucified, they went out and proselytized. He was important enough that they risked their own lives to tell of His, and that's enough for me.


Dan wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

Jabames wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 6:50pm: soo if u had domesticated cows, and then u just release them into the wild, they'll get back to their original wild selves? Kinda, this is also to answer many of the other question it is stupid to not believe in micro-evolution which happens all the time (domestic apples , new dogs ,better tasting apples, better looking dogs) these have all been observed however , This is not macro-evolution which says that nothing exploded ,became everything ,and the apple will evolove into a cat and a cat will evolve into a dog, and so on. Which takes a substanial amout of faith to believe.

I agree that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are two different things, but think of macro-evolution as the accumulation of micro-evolution so that a group of squirrels could become more like chipmunks until the accumulated differences make it impossible for the ground squirrels to mate with tree squirrels anymore. The best example of evolution I know of is the Blue Iguana. Saying that evolution is believing an apple could become a cat and then a dog does sound obviously stupid, and if it were really like that no one should believe it. But look at the same kind of generalization from an evolutionist perspective, that would be like an atheist saying that the Bible is the stories that cavemen told each other around the campfire.

Sometimes I can miss an obvious point, so it's probably me.  Why is the blue iguana the best example of evolution, Masiakasaurus?  I would probably pick any sort of whale.

Microevolution seems kind of like a misnomer to me, but I guess I don't get to choose the definition of these things...  ;D

Rat Man wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 5:19pm:

Sometimes I can miss an obvious point, so it's probably me.  Why is the blue iguana the best example of evolution, Masiakasaurus?  I would probably pick any sort of whale.

I meant to come back and clarify myself once I dug out my Zoology textbook, sorry for not providing you with the necessary info. :-[

The Blue Iguana is a species of iguana whose only difference from Cuban Iguanas is a slightly darker green color, but lightish Blue Iguanas and darkish Cuban Iguanas can look like members of the other species. Blue Iguanas (which are from the Grand Cayman Island) are very similar to some sub-species of Cuban Iguanas located on the islands between Grand Cayman Isle and Cuba. Until recently Blue Iguanas were considered a sub-species of Cuban Iguanas like the Iguanas on the minor Islands between Grand Cayman Isle and Cuba. We know that Iguanas reached the Caribbean by swimming to Cuba and then out to Grand Cayman and other Islands in the West Indies. Looking at the fossil records scientists have been able to trace the Iguanas in the Caribbean back to Cuba and the different species and sub-species show up in Bands radiating out from Cuba. The Blue Iguana was the furthest away of the sub-species and is now the geographically closest species of Iguana to the Cuban Iguana in the Caribbean. We know roughly when Iguanas reached the different Islands and the differences between the Iguana species (and the iguana sub-species halfway between two species genetically and geographically) is an example of how a small, isolated population will accumulate enough small changes to become a new species. Each island is independent proof that can be compared against the other islands in the Caribbean, and knowing when the iguanas migrated to the islands excludes the possibility that the species started out on the different islands and intermixed to form the sub-species.

Sorry... I'm a science type.  I just can't see this... Though it would be kinda cool   8-)

---

Morphy wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 5:44pm:

Microevolution seems kind of like a misnomer to me, but I guess I don't get to choose the definition of these things...  ;D

Micro-evolution is small changes in the frequency that certain traits will appear within a species over 2 or more generations, but which are not enough to make a new species. Think of the history of dog breeding as an experiment in micro-evolution. The different breeds are still the same species as each other and as wolves. Dogs are a good example because they are very plastic, a small change is very visible in dog breeding. Macro-evolution is sometimes considered the accumulation of micro-evolution.

I sometimes remember that after the fact Masiakasauraus. For some reason my mouth says micro-evolution but my mind is thinking macro-evolution. Oh well...getting old before my time... One of these days I'm going to write what I mean and mean what I write.  :D :D :D

Morphy wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 6:42pm:

I sometimes remember that after the fact Masiakasauraus. For some reason my mouth says micro-evolution but my mind is thinking macro-evolution. Oh well...getting old before my time... One of these days I'm going to write what I mean and mean what I write.  :D :D :D

I thought that was the case, but it's a good idea to have a definition so that we know what we're debating. It keeps the debate from spiraling into an argument.

i'm...atheist, but to an extent. i believe that there is no god, because i can see and explain what is true in most cases myself, whereas finding some things in various religions incorrect. i also have not seen, or witnessed anything that could imply that there is god other that ancient texts....which aren't all that scientific. however, something like the big bang, quantum universe, black holes being portals, etc, hard to believe. it sounds like a hypothesis based on an assumption based on a guess, so on.

my reasons for atheism really goes down to a few things

Why should there only be one group of gods? or does each god control the territory it is believed in, which could be several places. almost like heaven, valhalla, eternal shrine of happiness, etc/hell, hel, the underworld, etc is like a second earth, except that instead of countries and presidents it's god's and areas of belief?  i don't know, so i',m not going to devote myself to it.

if God is perfect, then why are there so many problems? Greek gods where a hella nasty, Crusades, inquisition, etc. why would they allow this? the Islamic jihad is at least part of the the Koran.

how do we know that there is a god? we used religion to explain things when we were primitive, but we have the new invention, science. so why should i believe in what i've never seen, and what most people probably haven't seen either, and stuff that hasn't worked too effectively either, to something that works most of the time, and can be proven.

Realisticly, you can't expect the bible to be regarded as a scientific view, wheter you are someone of faith or not.

Before the year 1687, the earth and the heavens were two different things. Then, Newton's Principia came and people realized that the cosmos could be expressed in a mathematical, scientific view. Principia was the dawn of a new era.

Besides, at one point in history, people made gods for the phenomena they failed to understand. A god for the sea, a god for thunder, a god for the sun and so on. If someone said he belived in the god of the sea, he would be riddiculed.

I beleive in god!

If the credibility of the Bible is at question there is evidence that says otherwise, one example everyone knows the basic story of Jesus (in a nutshell)  that he was born in a manger, preformed several miracles , died on the cross , rose 3 days later, etc . However few people realize how much prophesy was involved  . Listed below is a list of fufillments ,prophosey references ,and the probablity of it happening.

His Birth in Bethlehem form the tribe of Judah - (Micha 5:2) ,(Genisis 49:10) - 1 in 2,400

He would be proceded by a messenger - (Isaiah 40:3) - 1 in 20

He would enter Jerusalem on a colt - (Zecheriah 9:9) - 1 in 50

He would be betrayed by a friend - (Psalm 41:9) - 1 in 10

His hands would be pierced - (Psalm 22:16) - 1 in 100

He would be wounded by his enemies - (Isaiah 53:5) - 1 in 10

His Betrayal for 30 pices of silver - (Zecheriah 11:12) - 1 in 50

He will be spit upon and beaten - (Isaiah 50:6) - 1 in 10

His betrayal money would be thrown in the temple and then given to buy a potters field - (Zecheriah 11:13) - 1 in 200

He would be silent before his accusers - (Isaiah 53:7) - 1 in 100

He would be crucified with thieves - (Isaiah 53:2 ) - 1 in 100

People would gamble for his garments -  (Psalm 22:18)  - 1 in 100  

His side would be pierced - (Zecheriah 12:10) - 1 in 100

None of His bones would be broken - (Psalm 34:20) - 1 in 20

The body would not decay  - (Psalm 16:10) - 1 in 20,000

The burial in a rich man's toom - (Isaiah 53:9) - 1 in 100

The Darkness covering the earth - (Amos 8:9) 1 in 1,000

The probablity AGAINST these 17 prediedictions is  
1 chance in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
or
1 chance in 480 billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion  

In other words there is only one chance in 480 billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion that these Old Testament prophets could have accurately have predicted these seventeen specific prophecies about the life, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ.

You seem to have drifted somewhat from the Creationist/natural history brunt of the original post....

As one who is rather widely read in the sciences and evolution in particular, as well as having been an committed atheist for at least 40 years....

I believe that the Bible is a  creation myth of a primitive group of nomads.   I have a big encyclopedia of mythology at home.  It's full of creation myths...Dozens of them from people all over the world.   One is as good as the other as a narrative tale, and none need be taken seriously.

Let me be succinct.  There is no evidence whatever in support of a literal reading of the Genesis myth, or that the Earth was specially created in toto a mere 6000 years ago.  (News to the Chinese, I suspect, who have written history going back almost 10,000 years...)
Whereas...There is massive and incontrovertible evidence in support of the current scientific paradigm that the universe is some 13.5 billion years old, that our solar system is perhaps 5 billion years old, that life first arose about 3.5 billion years ago, and that from that point on, following the principals of Darwinian evolution, life flourished and diversified into the forms we see today, including ourselves.
Many millions of species have gone extinct over that period of time, and in the cases of at least three major extinction events, as much as 90% of all life on Earth was wiped out, only to re-flourish.

Tell me... Why would a God go to such incredible lengths to fool such easily-fooled beings as ourselves; creating a universe which did not appear to have been created?

Bikewer it seems as though you have not read my post above showing the crdibility of the Bible that it was not just a "good book" written by a group of nomads . As I said earlier " Were you there , if not the Bible is still our best source of information."  To me God has made the universe look as obvious as he could to show Divine Creation for example you are no doubt familiar with erosion, Scientist have found that at the current erosion rate the montains will erode every 17 million years and if the earth was billions of years old the mountains should have been eroded several times now ,other evidences of a young earth are ;

The oldest living coral reef is only 4,200 years old

The oldest livivng tree in the world is only 4,300 years old

The current population of the world could easily be generated by eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4,000 years.

Saturns rings are unstable indicating they are less than billions of years old.

The existance of short period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.

See next post...........

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:07pm:

\ Scientist have found that at the current erosion rate the montains will erode every 17 million years and if the earth was billions of years old the mountains should have been eroded several times now

That's not correct Dan. Mountains and rocks do erode over time, but the reason that we have mountains now is due to plate tectonics.
The pressure between the plates colliding with each other constantly make new mountain chains, while others sink into the ocean. This takes millions of years.

The ocean floor is covered in moutains, canyons, cliffs, plains, etc. Nearly every topography terrain on the surface can be found on the ocean floor.

Also here is a list (animals and chromosones) of how animals should have evolved according to evolution.  

Penicilum  2 , fruit fly  8 , tomato  12, house fly 12,  garden pea 14, honey bee 16, leattuce 18, carrot 20, marijuana 20, corn 20 , kidney bean 22, redwood 22, opossum 22, frog 26, onion 32, alligtor 32, apple 34, starfish 36, cat 38, soybean 40 , wheat 42, bat 44 , human 46, tobaco 48, chimp 48, amoeba 50, cotton 52, silk worm 56, cow 60, horse 64, duck 78,  dog 78, chicken 78, turkey 82, sweet potato 90, gold fish 94, carp 100, white ash 138, and finaly the ultimate life form............. a fern with 480 chromosones !

Also Bikewer do you honostly believe that "In the Beggining there was nothing and than nothing exploded and became the awsome universe we have today."  

Evolution is a fairy tail ( frog + kiss = prince , evolution says that , frog + time = prince)  

Rockman wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:23pm:

Dan wrote on Aug 25th, 2010 at 4:07pm: \ Scientist have found that at the current erosion rate the montains will erode every 17 million years and if the earth was billions of years old the mountains should have been eroded several times now That's not correct Dan. Mountains and rocks do erode over time, but the reason that we have mountains now is due to plate tectonics. The pressure between the plates colliding with each other constantly make new mountain chains, while others sink into the ocean. This takes millions of years. The ocean floor is covered in moutains, canyons, cliffs, plains, etc. Nearly every topography terrain on the surface can be found on the ocean floor.

Rockman I am not sure if you realize this but , it only takes one of the above examples to disprove evolution. And you also did not take consideration of the Flood which caused massive amounts of erosion creating many of the mountains we have today, a more recent example is the mount St.  Hellens explosion, look it up and you will see how little time it takes to change earths landscape.

Any other Christian brothers want to help me out? Because of the David and Goliath story I kinda figured I would not be on my own on this one.

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:52pm:

Any other Christian brothers want to help me out? Because of the David and Goliath story I kinda figured I would not be on my own on this one.

You aren't alone in being Christian, nor are you alone in being a creationist. We have many on this site. You are however the only person that I know of who believes in a young earth.

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

If the credibility of the Bible is at question there is evidence that says otherwise, one example everyone knows the basic story of Jesus (in a nutshell)  that he was born in a manger, preformed several miracles , died on the cross , rose 3 days later, etc . However few people realize how much prophesy was involved  . Listed below is a list of fufillments ,prophosey references ,and the probablity of it happening. His Birth in Bethlehem form the tribe of Judah - (Micha 5:2) ,(Genisis 49:10) - 1 in 2,400... The probablity AGAINST these 17 prediedictions is   1 chance in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 chance in 480 billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion In other words there is only one chance in 480 billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion that these Old Testament prophets could have accurately have predicted these seventeen specific prophecies about the life, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ.

No contest.

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:38pm:

Also here is a list (animals and chromosones) of how animals should have evolved according to evolution.   Penicilum  2 , fruit fly  8 , tomato  12, house fly 12,  garden pea 14, honey bee 16, leattuce 18, carrot 20, marijuana 20, corn 20 , kidney bean 22, redwood 22, opossum 22, frog 26, onion 32, alligtor 32, apple 34, starfish 36, cat 38, soybean 40 , wheat 42, bat 44 , human 46, tobaco 48, chimp 48, amoeba 50, cotton 52, silk worm 56, cow 60, horse 64, duck 78,  dog 78, chicken 78, turkey 82, sweet potato 90, gold fish 94, carp 100, white ash 138, and finaly the ultimate life form............. a fern with 480 chromosones !

Number of chromosomes is not a measure of organismal complexity.

Quote:

Shared sequences of apparently non-functional DNA are a major line of evidence for common descent. Pseudogene sequences appear to accumulate mutations more rapidly than coding sequences due to a loss of selective pressure. This allows for the creation of mutant alleles that incorporate new functions that may be favored by natural selection; thus, pseudogenes can serve as raw material for evolution and can be considered "protogenes".

Information taken from http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/91/3/221?view=long&pmid=10833048, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/, and http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.37.040103.103949. Quoted from wikipedia, but I check their sources. Did you know that humans develop gills and tails in the womb which disappear before we're born?

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

Also Bikewer do you honostly believe that "In the Beginning there was nothing and than nothing exploded and became the awesome universe we have today."

Is nothing and an explosion harder to believe than nothing and then light? Objectively they sound pretty similar...

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

Evolution is a fairy tail ( frog + kiss = prince , evolution says that frog + time = prince)

No, it doesn't.

Rockman wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:23pm:

Dan wrote on Aug 25th, 2010 at 4:07pm: \ Scientist have found that at the current erosion rate the montains will erode every 17 million years and if the earth was billions of years old the mountains should have been eroded several times now That's not correct Dan. Mountains and rocks do erode over time, but the reason that we have mountains now is due to plate tectonics. The pressure between the plates colliding with each other constantly make new mountain chains, while others sink into the ocean. This takes millions of years. The ocean floor is covered in moutains, canyons, cliffs, plains, etc. Nearly every topography terrain on the surface can be found on the ocean floor.

You are both right. Mountains do erode, and plate tectonics does make new crust. The specific principle of plate tectonics that deals with this is seafloor spreading, which combined with the natural movement of the plates combines to renew the mountains over time. The places where the plates are separating are called divergent boundaries. In fact it does too good a job, and the Himalayas are still growing. Another factor is that the Jet stream (which shifts and moves periodically) carries dust across the surface of the earth, and repositions it eroding one spot and building up sediment in other areas before it shifts and repositions the sand/dust all over again.

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:44pm:

And you also did not take consideration of the Flood which caused massive amounts of erosion creating many of the mountains we have today, a more recent example is the mount St.  Hellens explosion, look it up and you will see how little time it takes to change earths landscape.

Best i can determine Noah lived in the area where the Dead Sea now is and the great flood encompassed an area twice the current size of the Dead Sea. It's not quite global, but still pretty darn huge. Mt. St. Hellens was a pretty huge explosion that radically reduced the mountain to rubble, but it works both ways. Mountains can be built up and and destroyed.

Bikewer wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 12:48pm:

As one who is rather widely read in the sciences and evolution in particular, as well as having been an committed atheist for at least 40 years.... I believe that the Bible is a  creation myth of a primitive group of nomads.   I have a big encyclopedia of mythology at home.  It's full of creation myths...Dozens of them from people all over the world.   One is as good as the other as a narrative tale, and none need be taken seriously.

For the purpose of debate can we say that the beginning of Genesis is a creation myth/story and that the Bible as a whole is a written history filled with their mythic/religious interpretations for the events which happened to the nomads? If we don't it makes this less debatable, and I really don't want this thread to be locked for fighting. It's a very rare case when people refrain from insulting each other before now.

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

If the credibility of the Bible is at question there is evidence that says otherwise, one example everyone knows the basic story of Jesus (in a nutshell)  that he was born in a manger, preformed several miracles , died on the cross , rose 3 days later, etc . However few people realize how much prophesy was involved  . Listed below is a list of fufillments ,prophosey references ,and the probablity of it happening. His Birth in Bethlehem form the tribe of Judah - (Micha 5:2) ,(Genisis 49:10) - 1 in 2,400 He would be proceded by a messenger - (Isaiah 40:3) - 1 in 20 ......... The probablity AGAINST these 17 prediedictions is   1 chance in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 chance in 480 billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion   In other words there is only one chance in 480 billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion that these Old Testament prophets could have accurately have predicted these seventeen specific prophecies about the life, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ.

Dan,

Where do these numbers come from? They seem somewhat arbitrary. Personally I have no problem with someone holding your beliefs, but if you claim 'scientific' proof for your views expect them to be examined.

Much of your evidence is satisfactory to you because you merely wish to confirm your views. It needs to be better to convince those who do not believe as you.

Why do you suppose the existence of short-period comets confirms your view of the universe?

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:07pm:

other evidences of a young earth are ; The oldest living coral reef is only 4,200 years old The oldest livivng tree in the world is only 4,300 years old

The key word here is LIVING.
Only a handfull of organisms can survive for milenia. But dead things and organisms (ammonites, trylobites, coal, oil, dinosaurs, early mammanls) go back millions of years ago.

Besides, the very first passage of Genesis is wrong. (I'm parafrasing this) In the beggining, God created the heavens and Earth, and the earth was dissordered and without shape, and darkness covered the abyss.  And the then god said  "let there be light", and there was light.  

To have a planet, you need the sun first, so there was always light.  

Ah, but saying that the earth was disordered and without shape is one way of saying that it hadn't formed yet but that the materials may or may not have been present. According to most interpretations the sun does predate the earth.

The decay of radiactive materials has been adressed on the original thread, but I can think of another clock of sort to determine the age of the universe. The Cepheid or standard candles as they have been called.

A cepheid is a star who gives pulsations at a very precise rate, like a interstellar heartbeat. The north star is an example of a cepheid.
So you measure a cepheid, wait some time, measure the cephid, wait some more, measure again and so on. This gives you an pretty good idea of the expansion rate of the universe.

And if you know how fast it is expanding, you can calculate backwards as well. 5 thousand years won't cut it. 10 thousand years won't cut it. Not even 100 thousand or 100 million years.      

Rockman wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 7:55pm:

The decay of radiactive materials has been adressed on the original thread, but I can think of another clock of sort to determine the age of the universe. The Cepheid or standard candles as they have been called. A cepheid is a star who gives pulsations at a very precise rate, like a interstellar heartbeat. The north star is an example of a cepheid. So you measure a cepheid, wait some time, measure the cephid, wait some more, measure again and so on. This gives you an pretty good idea of the expansion rate of the universe. And if you know how fast it is expanding, you can calculate backwards as well. 5 thousand years won't cut it. 10 thousand years won't cut it. Not even 100 thousand or 100 million years.

Here's Stephen Hawking's take on Cepeids.

It's pointless to debate such issues on a forum like this, as the grounding in the basic scientific principals would take many (many) pages.   For those actually interested in the current science (which refutes all the tired old creationist arguments), I would suggest one book, Richard Dawkins' latest effort The Greatest Show On Earth.  
Unlike The God Delusion which addresses the atheist argument, this one is geared to creationists (or "history deniers" as Dawkins calls them)

Dawkins goes into great detail on the current paradigm of natural history and in a manner that is very accessible to the layman.

For those interested in the critical examination of the New Testament and it's problems, I recommend biblical scholar Bart Ehrman.  
Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities are particularly enlightening.

Bikewer wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 8:08pm:

It's pointless to debate such issues on a forum like this, as the grounding in the basic scientific principals would take many (many) pages.

It's not pointless so long as someone walked away saying "I hadn't considered that, it's going to take a lot of work to prove that wrong..."

Bikewer wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 8:08pm:

all the tired old creationist arguments... "history deniers"

I spoke too soon. This is exactly what I didn't want to see happen.

Bikewer wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 8:08pm:

For those interested in the critical examination of the New Testament and it's problems, I recommend biblical scholar Bart Ehrman.   Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities are particularly enlightening.

I agree that Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities both will open your mind to the selection process that went into choosing the books of the Bible and the intra-Christian persecutions that happened throughout history. Martin Luther and King Henry VIII weren't nearly the first people to split from the Catholic Church, they were just the first to not get killed.

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:52pm:

Any other Christian brothers want to help me out? Because of the David and Goliath story I kinda figured I would not be on my own on this one.

I am very happy with my relationship with Christ and God. But having waded into debates such as these more times then I can remember I find nothing good comes from them. I will boldly declare my testimony that Christ is the Son of God and has helped me in my life more times then I can remember, but I don't believe trying to prove the Bible or God through science is necessarily the best way to go about it, although perhaps God is working through you in ways I cannot see. Do what you feel you should and God bless.

God as creator may or may not exist. Even if it were so it would not imply the correctness of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Thom

one of my favourite debate topics! this may get long, we will see.

SCIENCE
science is why we have computers today, and all our technology. it proven to work and give results. i question how science got this far, but im sitting here using one of the productsof it. i know it works, i see that it works, and its an incredible force for good. (anti biotics, medicine, medivacs) ... and of course evil according to the user.

why would people make up evolution? to me it makes sense. random chances over billions of years. i can roll with that. slow changes occur. time is the key factor. if the earth were less than 10k years, then evolution could not have occured.

i dont know bout the accuracy of carbon dating, or any other of those methods, but i highly doubt the scientists are idiots, you know? college tends to educate people. and whats the benefit, as i said, of making up evolution?

RELIGION
a friend and i debated religion and sciene all through art class, and i think i have a basic enough understanding of christianity (not other religions). now if im correct, the only way i can escape hell is if i accept jesus as my savior. the only way. nothign else.
i will never, ever, ever, worship a god who will, if i do not choose savior from jesus, will send me to hell. i wont.
if i live a good life, dedicate it to helping the world, or anyone i can, why should i go to hell?

there are so many religions, which one is true? why are there so many, if there is only one true religion?

native americans. they didnt know about christianity until the whites came along and brought it to them. does that mean they all went to hell because of something they didnt even know about? where is the logic in that.

creation- in the begening there was god and he created everything.
who created god? if the earth needs a creator, why doesnt god? why was he just "there" always? makes no sense.

war. do i even need to mention it? why are all these damn religions getting so many people killed? COEXIST ALREADY!

the only proof i hear from christians it the bible. that is the only book i hear of where the get all their proof. is it even logical to obtain all information from one source? i think not. even if it is the said work of god, written over thousands of years.

a brief quotes
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.               i like this one. wheres evil? i see plenty, why cant
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.                                             god stop it? and im pretty sure theres an answer, so
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?                                      can someone tell me please? gracias
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

also, why are there so many different people interpreting gods will in a different way? shouldnt they all be the same, if its the same god? (im refering to the numerous christian stuff, like catholics, protestants, etc)

CONCLUSION-
who cares? ok, were on earth. ok, some peopel believe some dont. dont shove your beliefes down throats, or say "god told me to"
lets just concentrate on making the world a better place. enough with the killing, rape, slaves, etc.

ps, prayer, i think, is hogwash. its luck. if you want something done, less praying more working yourself.

Anything written down by man - is obviously not divine.

Dan I envy you your solid belief, it's not what i believe but why should anyone care what anyone else believes ?

I'm personally against organised religion in principle. But all for the communities that it generates.

Evolution makes sense, instant creationism does not.

At the end of it all nobody knows anything till they die. So I'll make my mind up then :-)

One thing I do find interesting is that science is often seen as better than religion. In reality it's just another religion. many of the core equations are not 100 % accurate for all the situations they should apply too: the two classics are quantum theory and relativity. Neither works consistently for all the things it should work for. Basically it's taken on faith. Scientists are as much pawns of their religion and beliefs as any religious zealot.

The biggest fundamentalist fanatic around is richard dawkins. A man so certain of his beliefs he has no room in his universes for anyone who thinks otherwise. Religious fanatic - most definitely.

As far as evolution goes I believe in panspermisn. Humans are just an animal that got lucky. Any aliens we meet are not going to be bifurcate organisms, just not going to happen.
But dna did not originate on earth.
Now whether that'sa sign of a universal intelligence or not - nobody can say.

But the idea that the earth is some alien kids petri dish playground - makes a whole lot more sense to me that an all seeing diety.  

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:52pm:

Any other Christian brothers want to help me out? Because of the David and Goliath story I kinda figured I would not be on my own on this one.

First, I feel for Dan who is attempting to hold up his side of the discussion on his own.  I've seen a lot of religious discussions on many forums, and I've never seen one that didn't erupt into a war if insults.  Why should Dan become upset if Bikewer is an atheist?  Why should Rat Man become angry if Morhpy can't see the logic of evolution?  To the best of my knowledge all of us live in countries that allow religious freedom, yet in forums such as this it's rarely practiced.  In that for the most part we've behaved in a civil manner here while discussing a very emotionally charged topic, I'd just like to say that you've all made me proud to be a part of slinging.org.  

Anyone interested in lively (and well-informed) debate on such issues might profitably check the James Randi Foundation forum.

In addition to discussing matters of skepticism and the paranormal, we have a "religion and philosophy" thread which is always active.
Warning...Have your ducks in a row....  

Many of our members are well-informed and knowledgable.

Rat Man wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 10:21am:

Dan wrote on Aug 25th, 2010 at 4:52pm: Any other Christian brothers want to help me out? Because of the David and Goliath story I kinda figured I would not be on my own on this one. First, I feel for Dan who is attempting to hold up his side of the discussion on his own.  I've seen a lot of religious discussions on many forums, and I've never seen one that didn't erupt into a war if insults.  Why should Dan become upset if Bikewer is an atheist?  Why should Rat Man become angry if Morhpy can't see the logic of evolution?  To the best of my knowledge all of us live in countries that allow religious freedom, yet in forums such as this it's rarely practiced.  In that for the most part we've behaved in a civil manner here while discussing a very emotionally charged topic, I'd just like to say that you've all made me proud to be a part of slinging.org.

Just to be clear, before I was not a firm evolutionist I was an evolutionist... So yea it's not hard to see both sides on this matter...
These arguments are pointless. I've seen good points brought up by both sides throughout my many debates on it and invariably both sides use whatever means necessary to try and dismiss the other.

I have no desire to get into the topic anymore as it is sort of an all or nothing type thing that leads to nothing anyways. Having seen both sides of this argument post pages upon pages of evidence showing where problems lie in the theory or where said problems are mitigated by this or that particular piece of evidence and no matter how much one debates this, eventually nothing at all EVER comes of it.

If I ever feel the need to have a pointless argument, I have a wife and I have in-laws so I am covered as far as that goes...

I disagree, Morphy, that the discussion is pointless.  Even if one doesn't immediately acknowledge that somewhere along the line some of the info clicked, a seed could have been planted.  Maybe someone's logic or message did reach someone else, even if they don't realize it yet.  In any case, I feel that there's no harm in a good, heated debate, as long as no one gets insulting.

Rat Man wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 4:46pm:

I disagree, Morphy, that the discussion is pointless.  Even if one doesn't immediately acknowledge that somewhere along the line some of the info clicked, a seed could have been planted.  Maybe someone's logic or message did reach someone else, even if they don't realize it yet.  In any case, I feel that there's no harm in a good, heated debate, as long as no one gets insulting.

Fair enough...it's not pointless, I am just tired at the moment and it shows in my writing I guess.

I'm sorry to hear that you're still under the weather.  Feel better soon!

Rat Man wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 5:20pm:

I'm sorry to hear that you're still under the weather.  Feel better soon!

Thank you sir... I think I need my tonsils out of something because whatever it is, is hiding in my lymph nodes or tonsils or something and keeps coming back. Anywho... that's life.  ::)

I've kept out of this discussion until now because I was worried it could turn unfriendly, and I didn't want to be involved in a fruitless argument that no one would benefit from, but I've been pleased that so far it has been a pretty nice debate. Just to let you know where I stand here are some of my beliefs on the subject:

I believe the Bible to be the word of God, written down by men under divine inspiration, and infallible in the original texts.
I believe that God created the world as recorded in Genesis, in six 24 hour days, and like Dan, I believe that the earth is around a little more than 6000 years old.

As to the theory of evolution I don't see much evidence that supports it. Certainly there are examples of the "Survival of the fittest, " and natural selection, and of changes in characteristics of a given species over time, but I don't know of any examples of a completely new, and different species arising out of another one. Also, it seems to me that evolution is statistically very improbable. That all species of organisms living today have come from each other, or from extinct species, through  genetic mutation and subsequent natural selection seems to me to be quite unlikely from a mathematical perspective. If you consider the number of physical differences between species as well as the number of differences in their DNA, it would take an extremely large number of mutations for a species to change even to another similar species, assuming all those mutations were even possible. The fact that most genetic mutations are harmful to an organism, only further decreases the probability for evolution to occur. In terms of scientific proof of either evolution of creation, I think that both are beyond the realm of science. That is, science can deal only with observable facts, and since no one alive today was there to observe creation, or to witness the whole evolutionary process, neither one can be proved. So it comes down to evidence, which can be observed, and to faith in what can not be observed. It takes faith to believe in evolution just as it takes faith to believe in creation.

I'd write more now, but my family and I are working on putting in a new floor in our house so I'm pretty busy.

I'd appreciate and comments or criticisms, or corrections of what I say, especially if I get some fact confused, which is not unlikely, or if I get out of line in my manners.

-Timothy Potter

tim,
if i understand evolution corerctly, the whole point is that there has been a ton of time for all the changes to occur. the harmful mutations die out, the one that are helpful live on. so, 3.5 billion years is enough time for changes to occur and the process to work.

i think the reason we dont see knew species is because of how slowly the changes occur. creature- change- creature- change- creature-change, and so on, untill there is a new monster. in that case, its hard to see the creaters and what the became.
also, apes and humans? we came from them, so would theres two different species, if those are different enough to count.
-and if im wrong, some one correct me please.

Dan, what are those probability you threw on the playing field?  who estimated the odds of those things coming true?

Dan wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:24pm:

This an easy way to discuss creation/evolution while keeping the general discussion section focussed on slinging I am a Christian I believe in a six-day creation (about 6,000 years ago) a flood (about 4,400 years ago) and I believe that the Bible is the inflallable word of God. What are your views?

I absolutely do not believe any of the above.  That's "my view."
I cannot even really fathom the thinking that arrives at those beliefs.


Quote:

I believe that the Bible was written figuratively and much of it is subject to interpretation.  I believe that the process of evolution is logical and correct, but that doesn't mean that God didn't put it all into motion.  I don't think that science and God or religion have to be mutually exclusive.  I also believe that no one will really know for sure until their final curtain call.  I respect Dan's right to his faith and would fight to the death to defend it.  I'm also envious of people like Dan who have such solid, unshakable faith.  I was once a very devout Roman Catholic, and it's very comforting to firmly believe that you know the solution, have the answer, or however you wish to put it.  I honestly wish that I still felt that way.  Life would be easier.

This does an outstanding job of summing up my feelings (although I was never a "devout" Roman Catholic).
Howevever, it's not really "envy" that I feel for the devoutly faithful, since in my core I believe that they are believing in myth -- so that would be like wishing I were able to delude myself.

I intend the above to be a frank statement of my feelings and beliefs, not an attack or slight or denigration of the beliefs of others.  Just so ya know, ok?

HurlinThom wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 12:30am:

God as creator may or may not exist. Even if it were so it would not imply the correctness of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Thom

:-?
Well said!

But we well know that believers, of course, insist that they "know" that God as creator exists.  When asked how they know, they reply, "Faith" -- which is, of course, the opposite of "knowing."

By contrast, I have yet to meet the non-believer who insists that he "knows" that God does not exist.

It seems that in general, non-believers doubt that there is a God, but do not assert that there definitely is not one, and admit that they could be wrong.
On the other hand, I do not come across many believers who say, "I believe that God exists, but I may be wrong and he might not exist."

It seems that believers generally assert unequivocally that God does exist, even though they bring no more proof that they are correct than the non-believers bring.

The most difficult characteristic about faith is that you cannot prove it logically to others. It is beyond logic. Attempts to prove the existence of God rationally in philosophy have always failed, and they must. Rationality, theology can put order to faith where it already exists. It can not transmit faith to others by arguments.

If it could, then faith would be a logical necessity, a knowledge, something people would be forced to believe in (like, for example, the necessity to believe that 1+1=2). Faith is, however, supposed to be something that can NOT be imposed by arguments.

Faith is something completely different. The only analogy to it that I can think of is a love relationship, including all difficulties, ups and downs, bliss, doubts and disappointments. You cannot "prove“ love, you can only believe in it. If you have not loved or lost your confidence in it, then it is difficult, maybe impossible, to have a real idea of its existence. It may seem silly and sometimes even contrary to common sense. For somebody who loves, however, it is the most evident and important thing of all. Convince others of its existence by means of spoken or written arguments? Impossible.

Credo quia absurdum, as the fathers of the Church said. I believe because it is absurd.

And it is not at all important for a mature Christian faith how old the world is, counted in the time span of revolutions of the earth around the sun. Neither how the the creation of humans took place in detail, if it was a single act or a process.

Hi Fundi,

I am to a great extent of your opinion.

But still I give one to the reflexion. Love is a knowledge. Namely absolute knowledge.
Therefore, knowledge stands in the Bible still before faith.

Faith dear hope, this three. Biggest among them, however, is the love.

If, however, already the faith can move mountains in größe of a mustard seed what love is able then of. If it is, nevertheless, the absolute one.

And this is complete no matter to which God one believes.

We are to be loved everybody in the situation.

This is for me phylospischer prove enough

Dan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

If the credibility of the Bible is at question there is evidence that says otherwise, one example everyone knows the basic story of Jesus (in a nutshell)  that he was born in a manger, preformed several miracles , died on the cross , rose 3 days later, etc . However few people realize how much prophesy was involved  . Listed below is a list of fufillments ,prophosey references ,and the probablity of it happening. His Birth in Bethlehem form the tribe of Judah - (Micha 5:2) ,(Genisis 49:10) - 1 in 2,400 He would be proceded by a messenger - (Isaiah 40:3) - 1 in 20 He would enter Jerusalem on a colt - (Zecheriah 9:9) - 1 in 50 He would be betrayed by a friend - (Psalm 41:9) - 1 in 10 His hands would be pierced - (Psalm 22:16) - 1 in 100 He would be wounded by his enemies - (Isaiah 53:5) - 1 in 10 His Betrayal for 30 pices of silver - (Zecheriah 11:12) - 1 in 50 He will be spit upon and beaten - (Isaiah 50:6) - 1 in 10 His betrayal money would be thrown in the temple and then given to buy a potters field - (Zecheriah 11:13) - 1 in 200 He would be silent before his accusers - (Isaiah 53:7) - 1 in 100 He would be crucified with thieves - (Isaiah 53:2 ) - 1 in 100 People would gamble for his garments -  (Psalm 22:18)  - 1 in 100   His side would be pierced - (Zecheriah 12:10) - 1 in 100 None of His bones would be broken - (Psalm 34:20) - 1 in 20 The body would not decay  - (Psalm 16:10) - 1 in 20,000 The burial in a rich man's toom - (Isaiah 53:9) - 1 in 100 The Darkness covering the earth - (Amos 8:9) 1 in 1,000 The probablity AGAINST these 17 prediedictions is   1 chance in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 chance in 480 billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion   In other words there is only one chance in 480 billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion that these Old Testament prophets could have accurately have predicted these seventeen specific prophecies about the life, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ.

And then there is the issue of proving that these prophecies were even made prior to the events they were supposed to have predicted.  How can anyone prove definitively that anyone made a prophecy that, for example, Jesus would enter Jerusalem on a colt?  What if he entered Jerusalem on a colt, and then later on (when the story was later written down), someone merely claimed, "Oh, that?  I said he was gonna ride in on a colt!"
Next thing you know, it's a "fulfilled prophecy."  ::)

Would you please explain the basis on which these "probabilities" are established?  How does one state that the "probability" that "his hands would be pierced" is 1/100?  First of all, I've heard that it's a misconception that the nails would have been put through his hands in the first place; that when people were crucified, the nails were put through the wrists because the hands could not hold the person's weight as he hung from them.

Next, please explain the meaning of a probability of 1/20,000 that "the body would not decay."
Is that an assertion that one in every twenty thousand dead bodies simply does not decay, for some reason?  :o
That's a new one, to me.

Is it really vital like Jesus has died? No! It is much more important like he has lived. It is also not important like one brought him to the cross. Also not whether he had children or not.
Only the consequence for your own life is important. Of no Coming to the father then by me.

Jaegoor wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 5:40am:

Is it really vital like Jesus has died? No! It is much more important like he has lived. It is also not important like one brought him to the cross. Also not whether he had children or not. Only the consequence for your own life is important. Of no Coming to the father then by me.

I like the way you think!

Timothy Potter wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 9:40pm:

I've kept out of this discussion until now because I was worried it could turn unfriendly, and I didn't want to be involved in a fruitless argument that no one would benefit from, but I've been pleased that so far it has been a pretty nice debate. Just to let you know where I stand here are some of my beliefs on the subject: I believe the Bible to be the word of God, written down by men under divine inspiration, and infallible in the original texts. I believe that God created the world as recorded in Genesis, in six 24 hour days, and like Dan, I believe that the earth is around a little more than 6000 years old. As to the theory of evolution I don't see much evidence that supports it. Certainly there are examples of the "Survival of the fittest, " and natural selection, and of changes in characteristics of a given species over time, but I don't know of any examples of a completely new, and different species arising out of another one. Also, it seems to me that evolution is statistically very improbable. That all species of organisms living today have come from each other, or from extinct species, through  genetic mutation and subsequent natural selection seems to me to be quite unlikely from a mathematical perspective. If you consider the number of physical differences between species as well as the number of differences in their DNA, it would take an extremely large number of mutations for a species to change even to another similar species, assuming all those mutations were even possible.

That is one of the reasons that I've maintained my faith as I've learned science, it's so statistically unlikely (even more so when you consider that it fights entropy) that it must have been maintained from an outside source if it is wahat happened.

Timothy Potter wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 9:40pm:

I'd appreciate and comments or criticisms, or corrections of what I say, especially if I get some fact confused, which is not unlikely, or if I get out of line in my manners. -Timothy Potter

I hope you'll do the same for me. My goal in debating religion with anyone is to present them with just one piece of information that they cannot refute with their current understanding of the Bible. That way they have to go back, learn more, and will come to me later and prove me wrong. I use debate as a way of testing what I beleive and refining it.

Woonilsra wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 10:40pm:

Dan, what are those probability you threw on the playing field?  who estimated the odds of those things coming true?

That was immediately what I wondered. It makes no sense to me. But those alleged probabilities were then used as the basis for "proving" how miraculous Jesus' coming was, because it bucked the odds.

wanderer wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 7:11pm:

Dan wrote on Aug 25th, 2010 at 11:19am: If the credibility of the Bible is at question there is evidence that says otherwise, one example everyone knows the basic story of Jesus (in a nutshell)  that he was born in a manger, preformed several miracles , died on the cross , rose 3 days later, etc . However few people realize how much prophesy was involved  . Listed below is a list of fufillments ,prophosey references ,and the probablity of it happening. His Birth in Bethlehem form the tribe of Judah - (Micha 5:2) ,(Genisis 49:10) - 1 in 2,400 He would be proceded by a messenger - (Isaiah 40:3) - 1 in 20 ......... The probablity AGAINST these 17 prediedictions is   1 chance in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 chance in 480 billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion   In other words there is only one chance in 480 billion x 1 Billion x 1 Trillion that these Old Testament prophets could have accurately have predicted these seventeen specific prophecies about the life, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ. Dan, Where do these numbers come from? They seem somewhat arbitrary. Personally I have no problem with someone holding your beliefs, but if you claim 'scientific' proof for your views expect them to be examined. Much of your evidence is satisfactory to you because you merely wish to confirm your views. It needs to be better to convince those who do not believe as you. Why do you suppose the existence of short-period comets confirms your view of the universe?

I aplogogize for not replying sooner guys , Wanderer Those numbers are not from my research they are from the book the "Signature of God" by Grant Jeffery an expiernced author and mature Christian.

To comment on the commets We  (people ) keep track of commets very well and they all have names too , now every time a comet goes around the sun it loses some matieral and after a while it disapates to nothing, the average length ( Estimation made by modern scientist) one of these comets can last is  1,500 to 10 thousand years , also there is plenty of tax money spent on paying people to watch the sky and we have seen no new commets being made. Indicating the earth is less than millions of years old.

Also before I answer some of your questions (which I will) Let me say that real science is observable , duplicatable, and measureable.

Also the chance of 1 DNA "happening" by chance is  10 to the 191,000 power and thats alot of zeros .   -Kent Hovind, Seminar Tapes, science teacher for 15 years , Christian, and Creationist.

Also the moon is gradually going farther away which means that at one point it was ................ closer,
This is no problem if the earth is only six thousand years old because that would mean that the moon was just a little bit bigger back then however ,if there was millions of years old (the time it takes for evolution to "happen") the moon would have been so close it would have been eroding the continents so much so that it would be enough to flood the entire earth twice a day.
That would be a little tough on the dinosaurs don't you think  ;)

Dan wrote on Aug 29^th, 2010 at 5:04pm:

Also the moon is gradually going farther away which means that at one point it was ................ closer, This is no problem if the earth is only six thousand years old because that would mean that the moon was just a little bit bigger back then however ,if there was millions of years old (the time it takes for evolution to "happen") the moon would have been so close it would have been eroding the continents so much so that it would be enough to flood the entire earth twice a day. That would be a little tough on the dinosaurs don't you think  ;)

actually, the moon going farther away is by tiny amounts that go a tad bit faster each, year, so 6000 years ago it would be by only angstroms. in fact, it probably happened several billion years ago, but then the tides fixed it before too late. also, Chinese history is recorded from 5000 years ago, yet other humanish subspecies are found in china. no record of them, so disregarding carbon dating, must be over 5000 years old. it takes a bit longer than 1000 years to completely kill a sentient species. that would put it at least older than adam and eve. what about carbon dating?

Dan wrote on Aug 29^th, 2010 at 5:04pm:

Also before I answer some of your questions (which I will) Let me say that real science is observable , duplicatable, and measureable. Also the chance of 1 DNA "happening" by chance is  10 to the 191,000 power and thats alot of zeros .   -Kent Hovind, Seminar Tapes, science teacher for 15 years , Christian, and Creationist.

Dan, I haven't seen you present any response that explains how these "probabilities" you cited are arrived at. On what basis is it said that any of those events had a "1 in 10" or "1 in 20,000" chance of occurring? Whoever first stated those probabilities should have an explanation of where they come from, how they are derived. Do you have that information for us?

i googled kent hovind, look at the first few paragraphs in wikipedia. he isn't someone im going to trust.
not just wikipedia though, even a fan page for him lists his battery charges and some other stuff, like tax fraud.

sorry, im not going to be taking anything this man says for real, you'll need better.

I am still a beginner as far as studying creationism goes so please read the Signature of God yourself for a better explanation also I have been backed up by several questions which I will answer over time . Woonilsra You are using a type of fallacy known as the ad hominem argument which changes the foucus of the argument on the person and off the debate, example ; My teacher Mr. Smith failed me on a test but he has been fired and demoted before so clearly he is not fit to fail me on my test. Kent Hovind is an awsome man who has had 28 professional debates and countless other minor ones on evolution and has lost none of them.

Q.If God is all powerfull why does he allow bad things to happen?
A. The truth is God hates evil 100x more than you and I do and he is soon going to bring judement on the earth and all those who have not accepted him as Lord  but he holding out for people like you to ask him into your heart and to send as few people as possible into eternity in Hell.

Q.I think it takes a wonderfull god to create evolution and to let it take its own course , what do you have to say about that?
A. I say your god is stupid , my God can do things right and do them right the first time.

 

Q. There are so many religions out there how do I chose which one is right  (evolution is a religion by the way)?
A. For me I went with the one that was backed up with the most scientific evidence and also ones that didn't involve blowing my self up or bowing to rocks, when you have seen as much evidence as I have it is near impossible not to accept God as your Lord and Savior .

Q. Do evolution and science complement each other?
A. NO ,by definition science is Man's observation of the physical world. Macro-evolution has never been observed ,let me explain, micro evolution happens all the time you can easily make a variety of dogs and the most popular "examples" of evolution  (that they teach in schools) are kinds of plants and animals improving you can get a better producing plant or a better looking dog with a bit of expirmentation however , you can not start with a dog and end with a non-dog it is iompossible

Q. Do evolution and Christianity complement each other
A.NO , God said that the animals would produce after their own kind, evolution states that you can get a dog to produe a non-dog which contradicts what God says in the Bible

Let me end this post with a question to the evolutionist .
Q. Do you honestly believe you came from a rock? Yes or No

i see what you mean there with ad hominem arguement. my bad there, you make sense about how other things in their life dont need to effect the accuracy of a person. ill try to avoid that in the future.

http://www.kent-hovind.com/aig_debunk.htm how bout this? answers in genisis look very authoritaive with info. so who is right, answers in genesis or kent hovind?

the longer god waits, the more people will suffer and be hurt by cruel people. if he is everywhere, why doesnt he just stop evil people from doing evil things? (im assumign there is an answer to this in the bible, but i dont know it) soon going to bring judgment? in history class, i forget what religion, but the people thought that god would come and somethign would happen in the late 1800s. why will it work this time? (and how soon is soon, a couple years, or a few more millenia?)

where did that second question come from?

and im confused here. how can people reject scientific proof for evolution, yet accept scientific proof of the bible? that doesnt seem logical, yet i can also see that going both ways.

ill have to look into this guy some more later, i want to make a sling now.

Dan wrote on Aug 30^th, 2010 at 7:11pm:

Let me end this post with a question to the evolutionist . Q. Do you honestly believe you came from a rock?

I believe that I came from self-organizing lipids floating in a mineral saturated saline solution.

God easily could have made us all pupets and made us all do everything right but he gave us the freedom to act on our own and see if we would come to him on our own , unfortunately some people reject God and as the Bible says they will be juged and sent to hell for eternity . End Times is a whole nother topic that I will not go into much detail as much but, I would encorage you to read the book "Final Warning" By Grant Jeffery for more information on End Times it was written a few years ago so many of the prophesys in it have been fufilled allready but it is still an excellent read . If you have spent many years and money studying evolution spend some time and invest in a few good biblical books and It will be the best thing you ever did.

I have not heard of the theory of God returning in the 1800's but my personal belives and studies give me the idea that the time is soon. Revalation states that the Day and Hour are unkown but make no mistake the Lord is coming soon .

Dan wrote on Aug 30^th, 2010 at 7:11pm:

Q. Do evolution and science complement each other? A. NO ,by definition science is Man's observation of the physical world. Macro-evolution has never been observed ,let me explain, micro evolution happens all the time you can easily make a variety of dogs and the most popular "examples" of evolution  (that they teach in schools) are kinds of plants and animals improving you can get a better producing plant or a better looking dog with a bit of expirmentation however , you can not start with a dog and end with a non-dog it is impossible

The definition of science.

Dan wrote on Aug 30^th, 2010 at 7:41pm:

I have not heard of the theory of God returning in the 1800's but my personal belives and studies give me the idea that the time is soon. Revalation states that the Day and Hour are unkown but make no mistake the Lord is coming soon .

Please don't predict when the rapture is. Even though you are being very general and are not claiming to have special knowledge by saying that you think the end is near you are setting yourself up to be a false prophet. I know that  isn't your intention, but it irks me nonetheless.

Dan wrote on Aug 30^th, 2010 at 6:51pm:

Q.I think it takes a wonderfull god to create evolution and to let it take its own course , what do you have to say about that? A. I say your god is retarded , my God can do things right and do them right the first time.

Let's not bring special needs into this. Some of us are more sensitive to that term than others, and I'd like to be able to like you after this debate.

In most Christian beliefs free-will is an important part, though some people do believe in predestination. You yourself have said that you believe we have a choice whether or not to do anything (your example was about choosing religion). Free development is a minor extension of that. Besides that no specifics are given in the Bible as to how any animals are made, except for Adam and Eve, and lack of detail on a process is not conclusive proof for no process. Genesis 1:20-2:2, 2:18-25. My personal belief is that evolution happened, but that it isn't important. It wasn't recorded in a sufficiently credible way to be included in the Bible (like many other books, read the apocrypha) so it must be irrelevant to the religion as a whole. The color of Jesus's sandals during his walk with the cross likewise wasn't recorded yet there aren't any black vs. brown debates out there. Creationism could be right, but I don't think evolutionists are going to hell just for doubting. If it truly was important then the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts would say unambiguously that the animals spontaneously appeared whole from nothing, and not that fish came forth from the sea and that fowl and cattle rose from the ground. Do you agree, or at least see where I'm going?

For your benefit I changed it to stupid but I also changed

Q. Do you honestly believe you came from a rock? Yes or No

Also whether you believe in a big bang or Divine Creation you belive awhile ago somthing happened that sent the earth spining like a top and just like a top after a little while the earth is slowing down (this is observed and is scientific)  (every 10 months or so there is a leap second) we can calculate that the earth is slowing down at a certain rate now we can multiply that rate and see how fast the earth was spinning before 6000 years ago this was no problem it might have been 23 1/2 in a day instead, millions of years ago we have a big problem perhaps the constant night,day ,night,day ,night,day,night,day, was what made the dinosoars extinct they couldn't get any sleep.  ;)  

alright i want to make sure were all on the same page with what evolution is (myself included)
it started with very simple organisms, and as time went by, these organisms evolved into different animals. yes?

so a dog will not  stop being a dog soon, but lets slap down few million years. if enough helpful mutations occur, that dog could  evolve into a different creature.

evolution-  the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg tree of life, the very center has that one organism, and as it evolved, different mutations slowly changed new creatures. then those creatures changed, etc. so creatures kept on evolving to what we have today, over many many yeas.

have i got this down guys, or do i need to look up evolution some more?

also, kent hovind has lost a debate.

Woonilsra, a dog might be a bad example of evolution in action.  Because they are now domesticated pets, at least for the time being evolution has stopped in dogs.  There's no survival of the fittest in their lives any more.  It's just a matter of survival of what humans find aesthetically pleasing.  The only way dogs will return to evolving like wild animals is if humans are somehow removed from the face of the earth and dogs are allowed to return to their wild state.  

i should have clarified, thats what i men rat man, i forgot about how they have nothing to worry about now in the forms of natural predators, because as you said we breed them now and protect them. so maybe in a hundred years all dugs will be extrordinaryily cute! ::)  

but yeah, an animal in teh wild left to fend for themselves, no human interaction.

Dan wrote on Aug 31^st, 2010 at 9:01am:

Q. Do you honestly believe you came from a rock? Yes or No

Then, no. I did not come from a rock.

Dan wrote on Aug 31^st, 2010 at 9:01am:

Also whether you believe in a big bang or Divine Creation you belive awhile ago somthing happened that sent the earth spining like a top and just like a top after a little while the earth is slowing down (this is observed and is scientific)  (every 10 months or so there is a leap second) we can calculate that the earth is slowing down at a certain rate now we can multiply that rate and see how fast the earth was spinning before 6000 years ago this was no problem it might have been 23 1/2 in a day instead, millions of years ago we have a big problem perhaps the constant night,day ,night,day ,night,day,night,day, was what made the dinosoars extinct they couldn't get any sleep.  ;)

There is one problem with this stance. The math is wrong for the rate of deceleration, by a factor of ten. This anti-creationist website is the only example of the data I can find. If you have a problem with it, Dan; PM me and I'll remove it. I posted it because the website doesn't seem inflammatory.

Woonilsra wrote on Aug 31^st, 2010 at 12:08pm:

i should have clarified, thats what i men rat man, i forgot about how they have nothing to worry about now in the forms of natural predators, because as you said we breed them now and protect them. so maybe in a hundred years all dugs will be extrordinaryily cute! ::)   but yeah, an animal in teh wild left to fend for themselves, no human interaction.

The simplest definition I can think of that is capable of covering something as complex as evolution is this:
Evolution is the belief that small changes can occur in an organisms to create more complex organism, and that different changes can occur between different groups of the same organism leading to multiple new organisms. Evolution being the accumulation of small changes in the rate of inheritance of any given trait to make one large net change after a long period.

I was recently corrected by my science teacher that science has to be observed and all theories of creation are just theories and the way we put together those theories is by gathering facts and data and making a conclusion the main differnce between Creation and evolution is Creation has a second hand account of how it happened . :)

the entire problem with this debate is that the creationists take the bible as proof and the evolutionists dont. yet still we debate, probably because its so much fun. ;D

first, klent hovind has lost debates, probably mulitple. either he distorts facts or does absolutley zero reserch on topics that are true and against his opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx7xfhOt0LQ&feature=related )and i dont agree with richard dawkins quote in the begening, too much of a generalization. and insults get us nowhere.)
we have a good idea of how stars form, we can take pictures and link the stages together. we havent ever seen a star form, but we have seen seperate stages of the formation.
-http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/forgotten-exper/#previouspost   rigth outa think air, experiments trying to see if its possible for the building blocks to occur from rocks, it is.
macro evolution has evidence from lab experiments.
cant comment on the big bang theory, i dont know enough about it.
a question for you-
HOW did god create the earth? saying "god did it" with a quote from the bible is likely what you use, so suprise me instead.

your right, evolution is a theory, an extremely strong theory that has stood up to all attempts to disprove it. science is constantly experimenting and finding more answers to the earth around us.

IF evolution was wrong, why would they teach it to us? we humans like answers, if creation was true then it would be taught.

Woonilsra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:41pm:

the entire problem with this debate is that the creationists take the bible as proof and the evolutionists dont. yet still we debate, probably because its so much fun. ;D

Well, therein lies the problem.
We have a group of people who insist that something that is proof, when it really -- very simply -- is not.

The Bible is not "proof" of anything except that "someone wrote something down."

A rational approach simply cannot grant that something is "proof" just because it's written down with a claim that it was dictated by an infallible source.
There's a gap there covered by "faith" but it is a gap nonetheless.


Now that scientists have written down in various places and textbooks that the universe began with the Big Bang, why don't Christians accept that such textbooks are "proof"?

one problem there pj. the bible was written, but so were our textbooks and such. does that mean our textbooks aren't proof?

it does not. the difference is that the textbooks were written NOW in our time period and we can check that work, make corrections, and keep on experimenting and researching. we have proof the textooks are right, we have no proof with the bible.

just because scientists write something in a lot of places doesnt mean its true. the christians could just as easily put down creationism and the bible everywhere. and of course, they would use the bible, i refer to my second paragraph again.

Observing a discussion like this I find it fascinating how the human mind works.  Here are two different sides of a concept; both are complete opposites of each other, yet each camp sees their own point of view as 100% sensible and valid and is actually frustrated that the other side can't see their logic.  Logic, objectivity, whatever should be a cut and dried formula.  Either it's logical or it isn't, yet it seems to be solely based on the perspective of the observer.  

A piece of information that the most extreme creationists have chosen to ignore, is that back in 1996, John Paul II himself said that evolution was compatible with the christian faith, and that the theory was more than just an hypothesis.

"The Pope's message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul. 'If the human body has its origin in living material which preexists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God', the Pope said."

the human brain truly is an incredible thing, the way it works in each person.

Woonilsra wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 11:55pm:

one problem there pj. the bible was written, but so were our textbooks and such. does that mean our textbooks aren't proof? it does not. the difference is that the textbooks were written NOW in our time period and we can check that work, make corrections, and keep on experimenting and researching. we have proof the textooks are right, we have no proof with the bible. just because scientists write something in a lot of places doesnt mean its true. the christians could just as easily put down creationism and the bible everywhere. and of course, they would use the bible, i refer to my second paragraph again.

There's a huge difference -- you already stated it. The bible is not the same as those science textbooks because the bible cannot be used to test itself. It's just stories. It's not formulae or theories that can actually be put to practical tests and be shown to be true. The things you find written in science textbooks can. At the very least, they can be tried out, even if not proven.

i would agree with that. i just felt that in your other post, you wrote more that writing things down makes something true, than the accuracy of our textbooks.

of course, if you tell a lie often enough, people will come to believe it, so thats a problem in general. :'(

Woonilsra wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:09am:

i would agree with that. i just felt that in your other post, you wrote more that writing things down makes something true, than the accuracy of our textbooks. of course, if you tell a lie often enough, people will come to believe it, so thats a problem in general. :'(

Just to add to a few quotes fom one evolutionist about textbooks  :)

"If you tell a lie big enough and loud enough the people will believe it." -Adolf Hitler

"Give me the textbooks and I will control the state "-Adolf Hitler

Dan wrote on Sep 6^th, 2010 at 6:12pm:

Just to add to a few quotes fom one evolutionist about textbooks  :) "If you tell a lie big enough and loud enough the people will believe it." -Adolf Hitler "Give me the textbooks and I will control the state "-Adolf Hitler

Godwin's Law! It's true! By the way Dan, this is an exaple of reducto ad hitlerum.

Yes it is kinda ad homien I guess but evolution is a pre-curser to socialism, nazism ,and communism but that is a whole different story.

gah, half my posts arent even answered, oh well.

dan, the first quote works both ways, so don't bother with that one in any way.

the second, now that is debatable. in this day an age, you'll need all the luck in the world to get lies into textbooks. but smart people will not let themselves be brainwashed by textbooks, you need power along with it.

yah godwins law! any law for the russians or communism? we could slip in animal farm while were at it.


ps- whats the text book? id like to see how they fit those quotes in. i dont see any need for either of those in science books.

Rat Man wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:21pm:

I believe that the Bible was written figuratively and much of it is subject to interpretation.  I believe that the process of evolution is logical and correct, but that doesn't mean that God didn't put it all into motion.  I don't think that science and God or religion have to be mutually exclusive.  I also believe that no one will really know for sure until their final curtain call.  I respect Dan's right to his faith and would fight to the death to defend it.

Same here. Much like real life, there is no real "black" and "white": just various shades of grey.

Dan wrote on Sep 6^th, 2010 at 8:24pm:

Yes it is kinda ad homien I guess but evolution is a pre-curser to socialism, nazism ,and communism but that is a whole different story.

I can see where in some extreme situations one's belief in evolution might help lead some vunerable sorts to Nazism, Dan... survival of the superior race and all that garbage.  You lost me with it leading to Socialism and Communism though.  That seems very "alarmist" to me. If you would, please explain.  

Dan wrote on Sep 6^th, 2010 at 8:24pm:

Yes it is kinda ad homien I guess but evolution is a pre-curser to socialism, nazism ,and communism but that is a whole different story.

Pretty dismal argument I'm afraid Dan. Christianity preceded all these - so I guess Christianity is to blame?

As far as controlling text books, look no further than the Texas School Board's recent behavior.

Telling lies big enough often enough? "They've got weapons of mass destruction"

When arguments get to the comparisons with Hitler I think they have probably run their course. :(

wanderer wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 1:21pm:

Dan wrote on Sep 6th, 2010 at 8:24pm: Yes it is kinda ad homien I guess but evolution is a pre-curser to socialism, nazism ,and communism but that is a whole different story. When arguments get to the comparisons with Hitler I think they have probably run their course. :(

One could even use the same argument with much more justification to say that the evolution theory fostered capitalism and imperialism (competition, survival of the fittest).

wanderer wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 1:21pm:

Dan wrote on Sep 6th, 2010 at 8:24pm: Yes it is kinda ad homien I guess but evolution is a pre-curser to socialism, nazism ,and communism but that is a whole different story. Pretty dismal argument I'm afraid Dan. Christianity preceded all these - so I guess Christianity is to blame? As far as controlling text books, look no further than the Texas School Board's recent behavior. Telling lies big enough often enough? "They've got weapons of mass destruction" When arguments get to the comparisons with Hitler I think they have probably run their course. :(

Chistianity says that God is God
Evolution(humanism) says man is God

To simplify it the Constitution says we have certain unalienable God given rights if God does not exist we have no given rights. Again please do more of your own reasearch get some of Kent Hovinds video tapes for example there are many people out there who can explain much better than I can .

Dan wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 3:57pm:

Chistianity says that God is God

So do several other religions.

Quote:

Evolution(humanism) says man is God

No it doesn't. This might be a nice rhetorical flourish, but nothing more.

Quote:

To simplify it the Constitution says we have certain unalienable God given rights if God does not exist we have no given rights.

Regardless of the language, I personally do not regard the Constitution as holy writ. The rights conferred were conferred by man to fellow man, with several exceptions of course. They would hold regardless of the existence or not of God.

Quote:

Again please do more of your own reasearch get some of Kent Hovinds video tapes for example there are many people out there who can explain much better than I can .

You seem to think that those who don't accept your point of view are ill informed. You are entitled to your opinion. It's human nature that we accept evidence concordant with our beliefs more readily than that which contradicts them.

Typically we take a position and then seek to reinforce it with selective use of the evidence. I know I do it, and I'm not alone ;)

kent hovind does not know what he is talking about enough to make a valid point. please stop referring to him.

Dan, you should be aware that anyone doing some research will look up Kent Hovind. Currently serving a 10 year federal sentence for among other things tax evasion. Something like 845,000 dollars worth. Claims a doctorate, earned in months from a mail-order diploma mill (the actual extent of his education seems to be graduation from high school). Etc, etc.

Beyond that his arguments are rejected by, get this, other creationist groups, both old-earth and young-earth.

You can follow this sort of individual all you want. Don't get mad if others decline to follow suit.

It's funny how the Christian is always against the wall,here and elsewhere.These type of topics always bring out peoples true colors.Bravo,moderators!!Great job!

Dan wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 3:57pm:

Chistianity says that God is God Evolution(humanism) says man is God To simplify it the Constitution says we have certain unalienable God given rights if God does not exist we have no given rights.

In a very real sense, the idea of having "rights" is merely an abstract concept, anyway.

It doesn't matter whether there's really a God to have given us our rights, because in practical reality, you have no more rights than those you can assert by force against any and all who approach you to deny you the use of them.

wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

It's funny how the Christian is always against the wall,here and elsewhere.These type of topics always bring out peoples true colors.Bravo,moderators!!Great job!

I wonder what you mean by "true colors"?
You mean, people get to speak their minds about what they really believe?  I cannot help picking up what I think is a derisive use of the term "true colors" -- as in, you're seeing that people are nastier than they usually let on.  Is that what you mean to imply?

I think that "the Christian" typically makes a lot of assertions, and it is only natural and only fair that doubters approach him with questions and ask for or demand some sort of proof.  Just like you would demand proof if I told you that an invisible tiger in the corner of the room will devour you if you don't do what I say the tiger told me to tell you to do.

The tiger-keeper is always against the wall, y'know?  ::)

wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

It's funny how the Christian is always against the wall,here and elsewhere.These type of topics always bring out peoples true colors.Bravo,moderators!!Great job!

Being "against the wall" as you put it has absolutely nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. All it shows is what the majority believes. Blacks were "against the wall" for quite some time in America for nothing more then the color of their skin... Jews were against the wall in Germany, Christians were against the gladiatorial wall when they chose to worship Christ over Zeus. And on and on and on...  ::)

By the way I am Christian and I have no desire to debate with anyone the finer details of my belief, so I guess my back is not to the wall per se.  But I am not ashamed to admit I worship the Lord, nor will I be any time soon.  I have found a great deal of peace in my beliefs and if there is nothing after this life then I guess that is reward enough itself.

Anyways...I'm surprised at the civility in this forum to be honest. You know what they say about religion and politics.

Slinging.org is BY FAR the most civil message forum I've ever been witness to. :)

wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

It's funny how the Christian is always against the wall,here and elsewhere.These type of topics always bring out peoples true colors.Bravo,moderators!!Great job!

Jax, I take it you are being ironic?

Whether one is Christian or not, one should be able to recognize poor arguments as poor. Nothing I have written should have left you with the idea that I for one am Christian or not. My beliefs I prefer to keep private, that's all :). Perhaps the difference is that I accept that mine are probably not provable through scientific means and leave it there. To me they are no less strong for that.

Dan asked for people's views, and he's had some. Are you expecting the moderators to suppress the right of others to disagree? I don't think anyone has been insulted, and I'd echo the last few messages. I think this forum has touched some prickly topics over the years and is the stronger for it.

wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

It's funny how the Christian is always against the wall,here and elsewhere.These type of topics always bring out peoples true colors.Bravo,moderators!!Great job!

One of the many ways in which my mind works differently than most is that I absolutely suck at innuendo.  I have no idea if the above statement is sarcastic or not, Brett.  In any case I,  and I'm sure the other moderators, have watched very closely and stood by ready to pull the plug on this thread if it gets out of hand.  I think it's a credit to the maturity and intelligence of all our members that the conversation has gotten this far.  

Rat Man wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 10:21am:

Dan wrote on Aug 25th, 2010 at 4:52pm: Any other Christian brothers want to help me out? Because of the David and Goliath story I kinda figured I would not be on my own on this one. First, I feel for Dan who is attempting to hold up his side of the discussion on his own.  I've seen a lot of religious discussions on many forums, and I've never seen one that didn't erupt into a war if insults.  Why should Dan become upset if Bikewer is an atheist?  Why should Rat Man become angry if Morhpy can't see the logic of evolution?  To the best of my knowledge all of us live in countries that allow religious freedom, yet in forums such as this it's rarely practiced.  In that for the most part we've behaved in a civil manner here while discussing a very emotionally charged topic, I'd just like to say that you've all made me proud to be a part of slinging.org.

This is from page three, where Dan is given credit for holding up his side of the discussion on his own.  If it is sarcasm, your post genuinely confuses me, Brett.  What would you have liked us to do?  Please enlighten us.

Of course it's totally sarcastic.Had the topic name been,"Debate my views",I may have said nothing.Most of the anti-Christian posts are just that.Anti-Christian and nothing else,just hollow statements like,"Can you prove God exists and created the world in x amount of days?"

No,it is called faith.I don't want or need any proof because I have a feeling inside of me that doesn't need debate or fear or indecision or worry or anguish or negativity.

 The existence of good and evil is all the proof I need.Look around,read the news,it's not that hard to find that evil is earthly and prevalent.

 Just"my views",

  Brett

To clarify,having no belief or debating others beliefs is not ground to stand on,just verification of ones lack of belief.To say you are agnostic at least acknowledges you may believe in something.To say you are atheist is only a confirmation of fear,a fear that something may in fact be greater than the almighty human,a complete and total admission that we are all just a mush of dna floating around in a sea of mush,awaiting the inevitable,death as we know it here on earth.I think being faithless sounds sad and lonely,always doubting,always refuting,always looking for a humanized explanation of things.

 More views,

  Brett

wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

It's funny how the Christian is always against the wall,here and elsewhere.These type of topics always bring out peoples true colors.Bravo,moderators!!Great job!

More whacks on Jax:

"The Christian" is an over-generalization. It's the Christian who loudly asserts his views and acts as if anyone who disagrees is a fool or worse who gets called out for that. Nothing to do with whether he personally has accepted Jesus as his Savior.

You want "against the wall"? Try being a Christian in Pakistan.

True colors, meaning what? That someone disagrees and is willing to take a stand?

Great job, moderators: should they start censoring posts on the basis of relgious orthodoxy? Bring on the Taliban!

Dan started this topic, titled Your Views. If he didn't want people posting opposing views maybe it should have been "Your Views as long as they are just like mine". He needs to be aware that the world is full of people who don't share his beliefs.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 6:43am:

Slinging.org is BY FAR the most civil message forum I've ever been witness to. :)

Yea I don't think there is any doubt about that PJ. Usually reading these types of threads is like driving by a train wreck. You don't WANT to look but you almost can't help it.

Brett, you state your views very eloquently.  I have no argument with them.  My question involves you calling out the moderators.  A moderator didn't start the thread, Dan did.  Though we've all given our two cents, moderators don't fill these seven pages, forum members do.  So, again, my question to you is "What should we, the moderators, have done?"  Not allow Dan to state his beliefs, not allow people to question what he wrote and be questioned themselves, dictate the direction of the conversation, censor the topic, which people obviously do want to discuss,  completely?  I think the fact that we've gotten this far with little proverbial bloodshed is a credit to both the members and the moderators.  
  I honestly do care about your opinion, so please tell me what I should have done here?  What would you have done with this thread if you were a moderator?  How could we have done a really, non-sarcastic, great job?

wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 10:54am:

Of course it's totally sarcastic.Had the topic name been,"Debate my views",I may have said nothing.Most of the anti-Christian posts are just that.Anti-Christian and nothing else,just hollow statements like,"Can you prove God exists and created the world in x amount of days?" No,it is called faith.I don't want or need any proof because I have a feeling inside of me that doesn't need debate or fear or indecision or worry or anguish or negativity.  The existence of good and evil is all the proof I need.Look around,read the news,it's not that hard to find that evil is earthly and prevalent.  Just"my views",   Brett

Jax guess I didn't get what you were saying. Sorry. I'm still a little lost, but that's normal for me.  ;D

I would join in this hot topic but God told me to be an atheist  ;)

As a moderator I consider it my job to see that views are stated in an appropriate manner. Obviously on such an emotive subject there will be a very wide range of views. Whatever our particular opinion is it is essential we respect the right of others to hold a differing opinion without being subject to any ridicule or belittlement.

Personally I am quite reluctant to edit or delete comments unless there is a clear personal attack on another member. However I ask that derisive comments on others opinions also be avoided. Apply the "do unto others" rule - simple!

Thom,Morphy,PJ,Wanderer,Rat,Lud and anyone else I ticked off,I apologize for getting wound up and pointing fingers.I  spoke unnecessarily and out of turn.Hot topic!I should stay out of these type of threads.This is a very civil chat board,and I'll do my best to keep it that way.

 Sincerely,

 Brett

wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 8:01am:

Thom,Morphy,PJ,Wanderer,Rat,Lud and anyone else I ticked off,I apologize for getting wound up and pointing fingers.I  spoke unnecessarily and out of turn.Hot topic!I should stay out of these type of threads.This is a very civil chat board,and I'll do my best to keep it that way.  Sincerely,  Brett

Easy to let the emotions take over. It's probably hard-wired into the psyche as a survival tactic, whether by a Creator or the process of evolution. Letting the other guy run all over you doesn't work. The meek shall inherit the dearth, as somebody said. This discussion shows that the folks here are not lacking in backbone.

Still, religion and politics are subjects best approached with caution.

Thom  

I know guys who consider it unmanly to apologize.  I think the exact opposite is true.  

Rat Man wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 5:19pm:

I know guys who consider it unmanly to apologize.  I think the exact opposite is true.

Agreed.  :)

Rat Man wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 5:19pm:

I know guys who consider it unmanly to apologize.  I think the exact opposite is true.

Double agreed. It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong.

wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 11:41am:

To clarify,having no belief or debating others beliefs is not ground to stand on,just verification of ones lack of belief.To say you are agnostic at least acknowledges you may believe in something.To say you are atheist is only a confirmation of fear,a fear that something may in fact be greater than the almighty human,a complete and total admission that we are all just a mush of dna floating around in a sea of mush,awaiting the inevitable,death as we know it here on earth.I think being faithless sounds sad and lonely,always doubting,always refuting,always looking for a humanized explanation of things.  More views,   Brett

It's totally presumptuous of you to impute the reason why people are atheist, as though you can assert knowledge of it with anything close to validity.

The fact is, just because you say that atheists are atheists because they "fear," that doesn't make it true.  There are probably plenty of reasons why people are atheists.

In fact, I used to call myself an atheist until I came to the understanding that it amounted to stating that "there is no God," and I simply do not have proof that there isn't.  So now, I regard myself as an agnostic who believes there is no God, but doesn't claim it as though it's fact.  It is no more valid for a person to claim, "There IS NO God" than it is for a believer to claim, "There IS a God."  NEITHER has proof for his claim.

People generally avow that Christianity is based on -- actually REQUIRES -- that adherents believe based on "faith."  Religions seem very specific about the idea that God wants people to believe on faith and not be insistent on having God's existence proved to them before they'll believe.  What's funny about that is the fact that as soon as the Christian admits that he believes in the absence of proof, there goes any standing for him to say that he KNOWS God exists.  How CAN he?  He just a moment ago said that he believes WITHOUT knowledge or proof because he has FAITH.

You said, "To say you are agnostic at least acknowledges you may believe in something."
Well, no.  You can't speak for agnostics that way.  How do you know that they may believe in something?  The whole point of being called an agnostic is that you don't believe in God but acknowledge that you can no more prove that he doesn't exist than the religious can prove that he does.

I think that most (perhaps all?) agnostics fall under that heading because they DO NOT believe in God, but acknowledge the fact that it's just not something that anyone can ever know the truth of.  I'm an avowed agnostic: I have never seen anything that compels me to believe that there's a God.  As a result, I see no reason to take the religious option of believing anyway in the absence of evidence.  I'll believe IF I ever see evidence!  But as I understand it, God has no plans to come out and prove his existence, because for some strange reason he has this obsession with making sure that those who believe do so without requiring proof.

 Jeff,

  What's your point?

  Brett

I don't have any overarching goal in this discussion. I just enjoy the back-and-forth of ideas, agreements, disagreements, rebuttals, refutations. ...

I saw points being argued and I had a contrary view to express, that's all. Nothing deeper than that, really.

All right I am not sure if this will end the debate (probably not) or not so here it goes,

Christian: looks at the facts, reads the Bible, and then looks outside seeing the applachian mountains. and says, "Wow this place is beutiful it must have been designed and it must have a Designer." in short

Evolutionist : looks at the facts , sees the dinosoar poster on the wall it says that the earth is millions of years old, and says "Well I guese the world is millions of years old"

By the way (woonsiera and others) if you want longer more descriptive anseres please feel free to send me a pm.

Again the Bible is true, example "The life of all flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:14) up into the 1800 if you were sick they assumed you had bad blood and the cure to most illnesses was to take out blood which inturn actually made the person more sick killing many people such as George Wasington. Only recently is science catching up eith the Bible . If you wish to here more examples feel free to send me a pm.

I don't want to put words into Dan's mouth and considering he's standing alone he's done a pretty good job with this discussion.  I'm going to speak from the point of view of my "Creationist" friend, John, who owns the limo company.  He's a reasonably intelligent person and if he were here now many on this forum might be frustrated that he ignores the obvious clues that evolution is logical and real. It's not that he doesn't see the clues and their logic.. He believes that everything that we see, hear, feel in this existence is an illusion, somewhat like a dream.  It really doesn't matter to him that in this existence there is evidence pointing toward evolution being logical and correct.  None of it is real.  Reality is with Jesus and God in our next life.  The Bible is from God and therefore is real and the evidence in this existence that refutes it is just part of the illusion.  Consequently, it's useless to argue what is or isn't logical in this world with him.  He sees your point but that doesn't matter.

... Yep. :-/

The point of evolution theory is that it's backed up by evidence. It isn't just a poster. Equally easy to say Scripture is simply a book.

Young-earth creationist looks at a poster of a dinosaur, notes that it says they existed millions of years ago and says it's false because it doesn't agree with his belief.

Appalachian Mountains? Why am I not surprised by that example?

I know I'm way behind, but I want to say this to Jax: I'm glad that you decided to post in here, because even if people have been civil your posts are a reminder to keep it up and to not hammer on Dan but to debate with him.

Now to Dan: I definitely straddle the gap between the secular and the religious people. When I look at the Appalachians I do think that a creator made that happen. I just know that plate tectonics is the explanation of how mountain chains form... not why. I will never ever look to science for an answer to why. As far as I can tell (from my own limited experience) the difference between atheists ( in the most literal sense) and any religion is that religion provides an answer to why (or lets us know that "Why?" is the right question to ask), but atheists don't think that there needs to be an answer to the why questions.

Why do I exist?
Why is this happening?
^These are the whys that I'm talling about.

The whole notion of a young earth is most certainly NOT in the Bible. Nowere in the bible does it state: The world was created on the year (fill blanks)

The idea of a young earth did not come from the bible. It came from a man called James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh. Consulting ancient texts which often contradicted each other, he concluded that Earth was created October 26, 4004 BC, 9:00 am.

Today's most powerful computers, instruments and technology can give you the age of something very accurately, but within a certain margin. This guy used only some texts and he can assest not only the exact day, but the exact time the earth was created?

And I feel the need to say this again: John Paul II himself accepted the theory of evolution as compatible with the catholic faith. If evolution is good enough for the head of the church, and therefore the church, what's the big deal in considering as a viable explanation for life on earth?

EDIT: Hmm...better pic.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/JohannesPaul2-portrait.jpg


You mean this pope? Well... I agree with you on one thing, 9:00 a.m. seems a bit off.

 Thom,

 What does,"Appalachian Mountains? Why am I not surprised by that example?" mean?

  Brett

HurlinThom wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

Appalachian Mountains? Why am I not surprised by that example?

What are you trying to insinuate there Thom?

wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 8:01am:

Thom,Morphy,PJ,Wanderer,Rat,Lud and anyone else I ticked off,I apologize for getting wound up and pointing fingers.I  spoke unnecessarily and out of turn.Hot topic!I should stay out of these type of threads.This is a very civil chat board,and I'll do my best to keep it that way.  Sincerely,  Brett

Nothing to aplogize for, Brett. I can't think of anything you have said that would be considered offensive; certainly not be me.

wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 7:04pm:

Thom,  What does,"Appalachian Mountains? Why am I not surprised by that example?" mean?   Brett

An extremely high percentage of religious fundamentalists in the area. Some of them get pretty extreme, as in the snake handling sect.

Dan wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 7:50am:

All right I am not sure if this will end the debate (probably not) or not so here it goes, Again the Bible is true, example "The life of all flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:14) up into the 1800 if you were sick they assumed you had bad blood and the cure to most illnesses was to take out blood which inturn actually made the person more sick killing many people such as George Wasington. Only recently is science catching up eith the Bible . If you wish to here more examples feel free to send me a pm.

one thing that seems odd to me- the quote itself. is it sayin that the blood holds the key to life? thats what it sounds like to me. and then you follow up that people assume you have bad blood, so you get bled, which can lead to death.

how does this make the bible true? that (i think) is in support of blood letting. (life of all flesh in blood).  sounds to me like the bible is getting people killed that way.

also as ive herd others say, it probably isnt easy being against everyone, thats my favorite side to be on too normally. ;D
but i give you credit for continuing the discussion! and the simple fact that we can all do this in a civil manner, no personal insults.

Rockman wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 3:18pm:

The whole notion of a young earth is most certainly NOT in the Bible. Nowere in the bible does it state: The world was created on the year (fill blanks)

Actually you should really read more of the Bible if you got up to the first few chapters in a book called Genisis you will come to what many would consider the "boring"part of the Bible (geneologies) they are actually very important as they list all the way from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Joseph and several people in the middle and what age they had there children. and by adding these ages and several other passages of scripture together we come up to the age of 6,000 years so no there is no exact "date" but God gave us many ways to find evidence of a young earth.  (over simplified).   http://www.jpost.com/

If you look at this israeli news site you will find a set of numbers (4 Tishri, 5771) right next to the date that we use they also added up the same numbers and came up with about the same number.    

And yes my house is located at the base of the applachains . Oh and I have always been curious , How does an evolutionist or an atheist decide right from wrong?

Actually, a few days ago, I read the entire Genesis and I came across the genealogy.

Person A had B number of sons and lived for C number of years, and so on for about 10 pages. Defenetly boring stuff.
But this only accounts for a certain group of people in the world. This genealogy applies only to those families.

For example, it is stated that god made Adam, then Eve. After being banned from Eden, they had 2 sons. That makes 4 people in the entire world. Cain kills Abel and after god confronts him, he says "Anyone who encounters me will kill me for what I have done"

But who's gonna kill him?. He makes it sound like there were lots of people in the world, but there's a total of 3 persons in the world, Cain and is 2 parents.

Then Cain wanders the Earth, finds a woman and has chidren of his own. Where did that woman came from?    

How do atheists and evolutionists tell right from wrong? Mmmm, that's an antagonistic question if I ever heard one.  

Do Believers only choose right because they fear punishment in the Hereafter? Kind of like the only reason for not stealing is fear of jail. Not the same as doing right because it is right.

Things like theft, rape, and murder are considered wrong in all societies, not just those in the Abrahamic tradition.

So Israeli newspapers show dates according to the Jewish calendar. Amazing. If you ask the average man on the street in Tel Aviv if he thought that was the actual age of the earth he'd look at you like you had two heads.  

I dont need a god to tell me whats wrong and whats right. i need myself and a Conscience to tell me whats wrong and right.

the bible is full of god smiting his enemies and such. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html.
so how can someone tell right from wrong according to the bible? or any religious text for that matter. im sure there are other violent ones that i am unaware of.

There are many people who believe in evolution or are atheists that are fine, honest, hard working, decent people.  It's just what they are and has nothing to do with what they believe.  There have  been countless horrors committed in the name of God in history and currently.  Whether or not one has a conscience seems to have little to do with what they believe.  Prior to the Civil War, Southern Baptists would go to church every Sunday, then go home and whip their slaves.  What does that prove?  Nothing.  Of those  who are atheists, evolutionists, Creationists, or whatever, none have a monopoly on knowing right from wrong or living a good, honest, productive life.

Dan wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 2:33pm:

Oh and I have always been curious , How does an evolutionist or an atheist decide right from wrong?

That is interesting, it implies that without your religion you yourself would not be able to. Makes you a bit of a scary person in my book.

Every person knows right from wrong, some just choose to ignore that little feeling inside them so often, or are so blinded by their own beliefs that they eventually deceive themselves. Happens to religious types just as often as to non-religious types. Or more for that matter considering more people are religious in this world then not.

I've often wondered, do monkeys think about why they are here?
They may not be able to speak a language but those apes are clever cookies.

Hypothetically of course, if we knew they did have religious tendencies, it would support both evolution and creationism.
Apes are our closest relatives, and as such are pretty smart, so that would show they've evolved a sense of self-awareness. Moreover, they probably wouldn't intrinsically worship a "carpenter who lived 2000 years ago" [Bart Simpson].

But then, from a creationist point of view, we wouldn't be alone in having a religion. So God must have made monkeys separately, as thoughts are not material characteristics, to be passed on from generation to generation.

The idea that without a bible to tell a person what is right and what is wrong, a person would be an amoral savage, is ridiculous.

In the absence of a bible, any society of humans will determine easily that there are behaviors that are harmful and cruel, and it will codify a system that punishes those who commit them. It is very simple for people to realize that they don't like to be stolen from, or raped, or beaten, or killed. From there, it's very simple for them to come to understand that there has to be give and take: you have to give your promise to others that you won't "trespass against them" in order to get their promise that they won't do so to you (the "social contract).

I laughed when I read the post that made it clear that without the bible, religious people would have to be clueless about right and wrong! Great point! Even the pope, apparently, would not know that killing is wrong if it were not for the bible, huh?

How do atheists decide what is right and wrong? They think about what they don't want done to them, and don't do that to others. Also, they simply understand that society already has a set of laws they're expected to adhere to. That's a no-brainer: follow the law.  

Follow your heart. ;)

Other than someone who is totally insane, every person on the face of the planet knows right from wrong.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 9:54pm:

The idea that without a bible to tell a person what is right and what is wrong, a person would be an amoral savage, is ridiculous. In the absence of a bible, any society of humans will determine easily that there are behaviors that are harmful and cruel, and it will codify a system that punishes those who commit them. It is very simple for people to realize that they don't like to be stolen from, or raped, or beaten, or killed. From there, it's very simple for them to come to understand that there has to be give and take: you have to give your promise to others that you won't "trespass against them" in order to get their promise that they won't do so to you (the "social contract). I laughed when I read the post that made it clear that without the bible, religious people would have to be clueless about right and wrong! Great point! Even the pope, apparently, would not know that killing is wrong if it were not for the bible, huh? How do atheists decide what is right and wrong? They think about what they don't want done to them, and don't do that to others. Also, they simply understand that society already has a set of laws they're expected to adhere to. That's a no-brainer: follow the law.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" Matt. 7:20 NIV

Oops!  Looks like Christians are supposed to apply the same criteria to their behaviour as those horrible atheists.

I did not mean to offend anyone on here and I am sorry if I did as the question states I was mearly curious ,also I figured it would be the nice thing to share some scripture against those who teach against creation.

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Matthew 18:6

To end this post I would like to say that neither Creation or the big bang theory can be "proved" as no human was there to observe it , we can observe the facts and evidences but, both take faith to believe in , only evolution is tax supported.

i just going to ignore that violent quote from the "loving" god

now why i think thats wrong. the bible is a book, some people wrote it a long time ago and we cant verify whats its accuracy on everything. the bible say something all powerful (god) created us humans
scientists take some study the earth and learn about it, and come to the conclusion that over millions of years the earth has changed, evolved, and by random chance we arrived today thanks to evolution.

creation- bunch of guys writing down the christian gods word and saying its truth
evolution- scientists trying to understand the world as best they can with logic, constantly correcting it self.

your choice

oh and a question, is creationism denying even a chance that evolution occured? that god is the sole answer to why humans are here? personally, (Not to sure on evolution in general but my opinion) i could easily be wrong and god created the world. do you creationists think you may be wrong and evolution is true?

so what about back when christianity ruled the world, im sure creation was believed in more often then. creation would then have been tax supported as well at one time. and how are we defining tax, as in contributions and government funding?

Dan wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 3:15pm:

To end this post I would like to say that neither Creation or the big bang theory can be "proved" as no human was there to observe it , we can observe the facts and evidences but, both take faith to believe in , only evolution is tax supported.

Edited in accordance to Ratman´s directions :

You seem to lack a concrete understanding  of scientific methodology.

Woonilsra wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 3:55pm:

oh and a question, is creationism denying even a chance that evolution occured? that god is the sole answer to why humans are here? personally, (Not to sure on evolution in general but my opinion) i could easily be wrong and god created the world. do you creationists think you may be wrong and evolution is true?

I suppose that varies with the individual creationist, and perhaps more importantly, why they are creationists. For example, there are those who believe that God used evolution when he created the world. They would technically be creationists, but they would obviously not deny that evolution was possible. For myself, I don't believe that evolution could have occurred. But I will say that my view of origins is not based directly on my observation. That is, I believe in creation because it is written in the Bible, not because I looked at all the evidence and decided that it was the most probable theory. By God's grace, I have faith that what is written in the Bible is true, and that it is the word of God. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, and not really easy to explain in words. So, I accept what is written in the Bible as fact, and what evidence supports it only strengthens my faith, rather than forming the basis of it. That said, I have not seen any evidence that would indicate that the Bible is false, or that creation is not true. And I have not seen evidence that would indicate that evolution is true either. So that even if my belief were based on observation alone, I don't think I would be an evolutionist.

-Timothy Potter

wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 5:20pm:

Dan wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 3:15pm: To end this post I would like to say that neither Creation or the big bang theory can be "proved" as no human was there to observe it , we can observe the facts and evidences but, both take faith to believe in , only evolution is tax supported. With this statement you demonstrate a profound ignorance of scientific methodology.

Unneccessarily brutal way of saying it but I must say I agree with the sentiment expressed. Lots of things are 'proven' without being 'seen'. Just to name two; you can't see electricity yet you use it every day, the earth was well proven to be spherical long before space flight was able to provide visual proof of this. (I know there are still those that believe the earth is flat. How they justify such an easily disproved view is beyond me.)

Anyhow, though obviously no human witnessed the 'big bang' as it is misnamed, there is quite compelling evidence that all matter in the universe was originally concentrated at a single point and the universe is expanding. Just how much 'proof' do you require?

There is nothing in the Bible that precludes the big bang, it's covered under the sweeping statement that, "In the beginning....
However the most important thing to keep in mind is that the Bible is not a scientific text; the writers were not concerned with and likely had no idea about the mechanics of how it all happened; it's simply not an issue.

I'm continually amazed, bemuzed, amused, puzzled, concerned, frustrated and disheartened by the degree to which Christians will argue the trivial, "Majoring in the Minors" as I have heard it expressed. I frankly don't know if the 'Days of Creation' were literal 24 hour modern days or not. There are lots of difficulties with that view and I expect they are really meant as long indefinite periods of time, especially as the whole passage has a sort of 'mists of time' feeling about it. Maybe that's wrong, but I don't worry about it. One day it will be made clear but I also doubt it will be in this life. If it was all that important it would be made clearer in the text. In the meantime it's sad to see how many lose heart and faith because of challenges to some particularly narrow interpretation of a Bible passage. Sadder still when persisting in such a view is seen as the test of faithfulness and conformance comes from fear and not real belief.

The focus of the Bible is not on the beginning of the Old Testament but on the teachings of the New. It's all about how we interelate with God and especially with other people. Let's concentrate on those things.

You really think my post was "brutal" Aussie? It was certainly not intended to be brutal or offensive.
I was aiming for clear and to the point ;).

Sorry, kuggur, I have to agree with Aussie.  There are many less antagonistic ways you could have said the same thing.  Due to the volatility of subject matter of this particular thread we're trying to avoid open hostilities. "you seem to lack a concrete understanding of" rather than "you show a profound ignorance of"  would have been preferable.

I modified the post.

wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 4:58am:

You really think my post was "brutal" Aussie? It was certainly not intended to be brutal or offensive. I was aiming for clear and to the point ;).

"Profound ignorance", is fairly dismissive. Better to merely explain that his statement was incorrect and that 'scientific method' allows for proof once certain criteria are met.

Dan wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 3:15pm:

To end this post I would like to say that neither Creation or the big bang theory can be "proved" as no human was there to observe it , we can observe the facts and evidences but, both take faith to believe in , only evolution is tax supported.

Well, creationism is given tax exemption, which no one else is given.
I'll bet that the tax exemption is worth far more than the pittance of tax revenue given to evolutionists.

You keep talking about observing facts, but when you talk about biblical stuff, you cite things that cannot be agreed upon are "facts."

Timothy Potter wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 6:52pm:

[quote author=Woonilsra link=1282670672/135#139 date=1284494111] I suppose that varies with the individual creationist, and perhaps more importantly, why they are creationists. For example, there are those who believe that God used evolution when he created the world. They would technically be creationists, but they would obviously not deny that evolution was possible. For myself, I don't believe that evolution could have occurred. But I will say that my view of origins is not based directly on my observation. That is, I believe in creation because it is written in the Bible, not because I looked at all the evidence and decided that it was the most probable theory. By God's grace, I have faith that what is written in the Bible is true, and that it is the word of God. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, and not really easy to explain in words. So, I accept what is written in the Bible as fact, and what evidence supports it only strengthens my faith, rather than forming the basis of it. That said, I have not seen any evidence that would indicate that the Bible is false, or that creation is not true. And I have not seen evidence that would indicate that evolution is true either. So that even if my belief were based on observation alone, I don't think I would be an evolutionist. -Timothy Potter

Wow. I find this baffling. I simply cannot fathom how a person can manage to say he's never seen evidence of evolution.

You say, "I have not seen any evidence that would indicate that the Bible is false." Do you not understand that this is backward? A scientific mind does not say, "Since this has not been disproven, I'll believe it until it is." He refrains from believing it until there's strong evidence that he should, that it is the best available explanation and is most likely true.

The idea of believing in the bible is dependent on the notion that it truly was handed down by god -- and there is zero available evidence for that being so. In fact, because there is nothing about it that can be said is beyond man's capacity to have written (and since there are known flaws and inconsistencies), it's far more plausible that plain ol' men wrote it.

Face it: The grander the claim, the more evidence or proof is required. Evolution has loads of it. Religion has NONE of it -- just a "God" who refuses to show his face and demands to be worshiped site-unseen.

Quote:

Religion has NONE of it -- just a "God" who refuses to show his face and demands to be worshiped site-unseen.

that actually depends on the religion in question.
Given that christianity is just one among many.

If you worship the sun or the moon your god is tangible, directly effects your world and is about as real as anything can be.

One thing I find is that polytheistic religions have a tendency to produce a lot less fanatics than mono-theistic religions.

Hinduism versus islam for example.

You need to be a little more precise in your arguments jeffrey :-)
If you mean christianity, don't just lump it in with the thousands of other religions - many of which have real and tangible 'gods'.

Just thought I'd mention it.
have to admit this is one of the most even tempered religious discussions I think we've ever had - keep it up folk :-)

As someone asked before, yes there are good christians that do consider evolution to be true .
I am not one of them however as I have seen about 50x more information on why the earth has to be young than I have shared on here.

What most "proofs of evolution" are usually just variation. For example many of you have heard of a man named Charles Darwin who traveled to the galopogos islands and observed that a group of  the same kind of bird had a variety of beaks and formed a hypothises that these birds had a common ancestor and he was right those birds all had a common ancestor however, this did not prove they had a common ancestor of a rock this shows they had a common ancestor of a ............  bird. over a period of a few thousand years those birds produced a variety of birds (this is science as it is duplicateable and obserable) so we can get a bird to produce a ..................bird. However you can not get a bird to produce a non-bird (even with"millions of years"). Yes you can get a variety of dogs  and a variety of roses and a variety of birds but, this does not prove they all had a common ancestor of a rock . Here is a passage of scripture that I will probably quote sometime in the near future so I figured I would share it with you now . 2 Peter 3:3-7 NIV

3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

If I favor science over religion it's because science gives you something to work with, whereas religion asks you to belive in something no one has ever seen and that cannot be meassured or studied.

A very strange notion is that any living creature is in a way, not alive at all. All the elements in the body are the same as the mater you'd find in a mine, the enviroment or a bottle of supplements. Iron, oxigen, copper, etc. None of those thing inside us is alive, but somehow, all of them combined make you and me.    

Dan wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 2:51pm:

As someone asked before, yes there are good christians that do consider evolution to be true . I am not one of them however as I have seen about 50x more information on why the earth has to be young than I have shared on here. What most "proofs of evolution" are usually just variation. For example many of you have heard of a man named Charles Darwin who traveled to the galopogos islands and observed that a group of  the same kind of bird had a variety of beaks and formed a hypothises that these birds had a common ancestor and he was right those birds all had a common ancestor however, this did not prove they had a common ancestor of a rock this shows they had a common ancestor of a ............  bird. over a period of a few thousand years those birds produced a variety of birds (this is science as it is duplicateable and obserable) so we can get a bird to produce a ..................bird. However you can not get a bird to produce a non-bird (even with"millions of years"). Yes you can get a variety of dogs  and a variety of roses and a variety of birds but, this does not prove they all had a common ancestor of a rock . Here is a passage of scripture that I will probably quote sometime in the near future so I figured I would share it with you now . 2 Peter 3:3-7 NIV 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Can´t argue with dogmatics.

yep, a quote from the bible? if the bible were accurate i bet everyone would be a christian. but its not. there is a reason that religion is supposed to be seperate from the state in the united states.

"I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours."

dan, hear me out now. just pretend the earth is many many years old, 4.5 billion. this way my argument makes sense. ok?

we have non-living substances on earth way way back 4 billion years. the right conditions occur and living molecules, very very simple ones, are produced.
next, some million years go by, these organisms have adapted to their environment and multiplied however they do it, and so there are more of them.
slowly, very very very slowly, larger and larger anaerobic/aerobic bacteria grow and change, as each mutation changes something in the them.
a small bacteria at first, then larger, and larger. it is lightweight and moves around easier, it somewhat glides in the air almost.
one of them is born that has genes for some small stubs on the side of their body, these stubs grow as millions of years pass.
the creature is lightweight, fast, speedy on ground.
a new one adapts that can glide for short distances, then fly shortly, then fly higher and higher.
we now have a bird.
(please note, this probably took a couple hundred million years at least)
that is how i explain evolution, of course it is not perfect, because im not a biologist that extensively studies all this stuff, but i think it illustrates my point nicely.
anyone see scientific flaws?

tim, that surprised me.  basically, you are putting all your faith into the bible. it amazes me. i see no practical logic.
some pretty honest stuff though, i must say.

Woonilsra wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 5:45pm:

yep, a quote from the bible? if the bible were accurate i bet everyone would be a christian. but its not. there is a reason that religion is supposed to be seperate from the state in the united states.

The Russian Reversal is that if Evolution were acurate everyone would be an evolutionist. The logic doesn't quite make sense.

And separation of Church and state was just as much to keep the state from using religion as a tool as it was to keep religion from influencing politics.

Woonilsra, we don't yet know where the first infintessimal speck of matter came from. Unless we do I see no conclusive proof against a god, if not the God.


Woonilsra wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 5:45pm:

we have non-living substances on earth way way back 4 billion years. the right conditions occur and living molecules, very very simple ones, are produced. anyone see scientific flaws?

I apologize because I'm going to be a little pedantic. The earth was very hot and somehow water and an atmosphere appeared (currently the most accepted theories involve volcanoes). In this ocean of water free floating balls of self organizing lipids formed. They were basically fat bubbles with a high surface tension made out of the same suff as biological cell membranes. Somehow a very specific set of minerals in a very specific prportions were encapsulated. This probably led to self replicating non-life like a virus but much simpler and more fragile. In all  likelyhood an ion channel of a particular metal was stuck into the skin of this non-life which would break the surface tensioin of the other lipid balls and allow minerals from the environment to seep in. These minerals likely self arranged like the lipid balls or crystals forming in rocks. Randomly a group of discrete minerals arranged in a way such that if broken apart and injected into another lipid ball they would reassemble in the same way. One of these repeatable mineral masses could have affected the chemical behavior of a lipid ball by altering its density, shape (by physically straining against its shell), electromagnetism, or something else wich made it more likely to disrupt other lipid balls, and form more of itself. This I would call proto-life, or the step just before life. They are more than just living molecules but living aggregates of molcules. Increase this complexity by several orders of magnitude and replace the minerals inside with proteins (a bit harder to make form spontaneously) and we would have something akin to modern bacteria.

so god made everything...who or what made god?

xxkid123 wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 6:52pm:

so god made everything...who or what made god?

Does the Creator need a creator? I don't think so.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 6:56pm:

xxkid123 wrote on Sep 16th, 2010 at 6:52pm: so god made everything...who or what made god? Does the Creator need a creator? I don't think so.

so it's always there?

xxkid123 wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 6:57pm:

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 16th, 2010 at 6:56pm: xxkid123 wrote on Sep 16th, 2010 at 6:52pm: so god made everything...who or what made god? Does the Creator need a creator? I don't think so. so it's always there?

There is ambiguous. If you ask me He existed before there was any place to be and any time to record whether there was a time when He wasn't. And yes, a state of infinite nothing and no time is mathematically possible, though I would believe in this even if timelessness were impossible.

never herd of that before masiakasaurus, innteresting, ill have to look that up. im checking my schools bio texts tommorow too now.
also, http://www.theguardians.com/Microbiology/gm_mbm15.htm  looks like their on their way to discovering how life first started.

maybe i sounded to matter of fact, i apologize. i was just saying the way i heard it from my text book. but then, either they've always been here and just had to assemble themselves, or they were created somehow by nature. so either way, the conditions must be there.

as i see it, if the argument i hear is that everything needs a creator, what creates god. why is god the exception?

CA: "If you worship the sun or the moon your god is tangible, directly effects your world and is about as real as anything can be.  
 
You need to be a little more precise in your arguments jeffrey   
If you mean christianity, don't just lump it in with the thousands of other religions - many of which have real and tangible 'gods'."

If one worships the sun as his god, sure the sun is tangible -- its status as a "god" is not proved, however, just because the sun is real. It heats the planet and provides energy, but does it direct destinies?

As far as I'm concerned, all gods are folly, "tangible" or not.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 6:56pm:

xxkid123 wrote on Sep 16th, 2010 at 6:52pm: so god made everything...who or what made god? Does the Creator need a creator? I don't think so.

Not thinking so requires adherence to the dogma that god doesn't require a creator. (It also requires that one grant that all of creation is based on a paradox that is left unresolved -- everything needs to be created by a creator except 'the' creator.)
There's no logical validity to it. There's either "believe" or "don't believe."

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 7:05pm:

xxkid123 wrote on Sep 16th, 2010 at 6:57pm: Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 16th, 2010 at 6:56pm: xxkid123 wrote on Sep 16th, 2010 at 6:52pm: so god made everything...who or what made god? Does the Creator need a creator? I don't think so. so it's always there? There is ambiguous. If you ask me He existed before there was any place to be and any time to record whether there was a time when He wasn't. And yes, a state of infinite nothing and no time is mathematically possible, though I would believe in this even if timelessness were impossible.

It's possible for something to exist with no place in which to be, and no time in which to do it??
The fact remains that it is still a point of dogma that god didn't need to be created, and that god (alone) has always existed. And no proof of it can be accessed -- it must be taken 100% on faith. That's not logic, by any means.

The idea of the Creator needing to be created is really an illogical argument if you think about it. If the Creator needed to be in turn created, then the one who created Him is in fact the Creator, etc.,etc.  So, by definition, God, if He exists, must be the ultimate, not needing to be Himself created . This is merely a question of logic of language: it has nothing to do with faith.

Trying to argue religious issues using logical/scientific arguments is like trying to screw using a hammer, it´s not the right tool for the job.

Of course the opposite is also holds true, using religious arguments to find the answers to biological,  geological, physics etc etc questions is just as hopeless and futile.

wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 6:52am:

Trying to argue religious issues using logical/scientific arguments is like trying to screw using a hammer

:-[I must admit that when I first read this I thought it was dirty. ;D

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 11:35pm:

Not thinking so requires adherence to the dogma that god doesn't require a creator. (It also requires that one grant that all of creation is based on a paradox that is left unresolved -- everything needs to be created by a creator except 'the' creator.)   There's no logical validity to it. There's either "believe" or "don't believe."

I've been very careful throughout this debate to point out that I am an adherent of I AM THAT I AM. And the paradox assumes that everything physically of this universe must have been created. As far as I know dark matter is an exception in the Big Bang theory. We don't know where it originated or how it is causing to universe to continue accelerating outward. Not even our theories are mathematically plausible because they have instances of contradiction. God is another exception. This is the oreborous debate, or the snake eating it's own tail. Ultimately it boils down to whether you believe that there was something even when there was nothing. Since I already believe there was a spect of infinite matter with infinite density existing in a realm with no dimensions (I have to point out that I believe all physical forces and demensions are a product of the Big Bang and not having existed separately) it is not a huge leapt for me to begin believing that there was something or Someone else too. There is no logical aregument for my position, but I've found no logical argument agasinst it either. It really is "believe or don't believe."

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 11:35pm:

It's possible for something to exist with no place in which to be, and no time in which to do it?? The fact remains that it is still a point of dogma that god didn't need to be created, and that god (alone) has always existed. And no proof of it can be accessed -- it must be taken 100% on faith. That's not logic, by any means.

Your point hinges on time and space. In the version of the Big Bang  that seems most plausible to me both space and time were products of the explosion. Space and energy were both created mere microseconds after the explosion happened. As this was cooling time forms, but it isn't accurate to say "as" or "microseconds" becuase there was no time, but we also have no words capable of describing no-time. Shortly after that gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, the strong and weak forces and every other force separated from the single force that existed before the bang (Ironically called the God Force). The best way to wrap your head around no-time is to imagine a deck of cards with a story written on the back of them, one word per card. No matter how you suffle the cards the story with still be right. Every possbile combination still is the same story in the correct order even though that words are in a different order. Even if you played 52 pick up and half of the cards were facedown so the events on them aren't ion the story and you read the remaining cards at the same time the story will still be accurate. There will be no cause, no effect, not instantaneous, but not protracted either. With no cause or effect nothing "must" have been created and with no time to do it nothing "must" have existed before existence.

This is the part that's hilarious to me: my argument doesn't need to be changed at all to argue against God! ;D

Had to share this one: http://amultiverse.com/2010/09/16/a-walk-in-the-park/

The big bang as an explosion makes no sense whatsoever.  How could the pieces still be accelerating away from each other if the universe was created by an explosion?  However, if it was an implosion that we are a part of, the pieces begin to fit.  It's the same type of illusion that has us believing that we're always moving forward in time.  We  move backwards and forwards in time in unison, but because we are simple, three dimensional creatures we are stuck with the illusion of always moving forward.  Also, there are no such things as dark matter and dark energy.  They're simply catch all phrases to explain what our minds are currently incapable of comprehending.

Aussie wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 6:30am:

The idea of the Creator needing to be created is really an illogical argument if you think about it. If the Creator needed to be in turn created, then the one who created Him is in fact the Creator, etc.,etc.  So, by definition, God, if He exists, must be the ultimate, not needing to be Himself created . This is merely a question of logic of language: it has nothing to do with faith.

Well, my point is that it's illogical and paradoxical to conceive of something that never needed to come into being.

"God has always existed." That would mean that God was here for an infinite amount of time before he created the universe. That itself is a paradox. It is impossible for an infinite amount of time to go by -- yet if God's existence goes back an infinite amount of time (i.e. He has always existed), then he waited an infinite amount of time before creating us and the rest of the universe.

What I never see religious people address is the potential for the Universe to have always existed. They say that God didn't need to be created, but that the universe had to be created (by God). If they can make the claim that God didn't need to be created and was always there, so too can the claim
be made that the universe was always there and did not need to be created. Their claim
opens the door to the concept that anything might have always existed.

wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 6:52am:

Trying to argue religious issues using logical/scientific arguments is like trying to screw using a hammer, it´s not the right tool for the job. Of course the opposite is also holds true, using religious arguments to find the answers to biological,  geological, physics etc etc questions is just as hopeless and futile.

It sounds, then, as though religion has no real purpose beyond being a mental exercise, rather like coming up with the concept that "i" stands for the square root of -1, even though we know that to be unable to exist. Since religion can't answer real-world problems, it's more like a crutch for mentally dealing with life's adversity. You allow yourself to "believe" in stuff you know doesn't really make sense and can't really be true, because it's a comfort. That I can understand; but I cannot understand when one insists that it's really real. Little kids make up imaginary friends to give them
comfort, but when/if they begin to regard and represent them as "really real," there is a problem.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 10:47am:

Well, my point is that it's illogical and paradoxical to conceive of something that never needed to come into being. "God has always existed." That would mean that God was here for an infinite amount of time before he created the universe. That itself is a paradox. It is impossible for an infinite amount of time to go by -- yet if God's existence goes back an infinite amount of time (i.e. He has always existed), then he waited an infinite amount of time before creating us and the rest of the universe.

There;'s your time fallacy again. Try and imagine that there cound have been existence outside of time. I swear it makes the existence of something without a universe plausible. Without time it becomes impossible for something to have existed "before" but still possible to have existed without the universe.


peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 10:47am:

What I never see religious people address is the potential for the Universe to have always existed. They say that God didn't need to be created, but that the universe had to be created (by God). If they can make the claim that God didn't need to be created and was always there, so too can the claim be made that the universe was always there and did not need to be created. Their claim opens the door to the concept that anything might have always existed.

Debate with people from non-abrahamic religions. I have a Buddhist friend (who is also atheist) who believes that the universe is trapped in a continuous cycle of expansion and contraction but has existed forever and will exist forever. Christians, Jews, and Muslims will never argue that the universe always existed because none of us believe that.

Rat Man wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 10:46am:

The big bang as an explosion makes no sense whatsoever.  How could the pieces still be accelerating away from each other if the universe was created by an explosion?  However, if it was an implosion that we are a part of, the pieces begin to fit.  It's the same type of illusion that has us believing that we're always moving forward in time.  We  move backwards and forwards in time in unison, but because we are simple, three dimensional creatures we are stuck with the illusion of always moving forward.  Also, there are no such things as dark matter and dark energy.  They're simply catch all phrases to explain what our minds are currently incapable of comprehending.

One problem with this theory is that we know the average velocities and the accelerations of several universes around us. Galaxies farther from the universal core than us are gaining velocity and moving farther away from both the core and from each other. Galaxies relatively close to us and gaining proportionately less verocity but still gaining velocity. Our galaxy and those near us are going to be similar distances from the universal core for a long time, but we are accelerating away from each other too. Galaxies closer to the univresal core are moving away from the core and each other too, but we are accelerating away from them at an increasing rate. Because we as humans are in 4D (three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension) then everything we observe is also in 4D so the effects of different time "arrows" as they're called (analogous to a compass needle pointing in the direction that local time will flow) are not apparent in our observations, so if the universe was an implosion-in-progress we would never know. If the universe were imploding and it was observable then all the galaxies farther from the core than us would be accelerating away from our galaxy and toward each other while all other galaxies would appear to be accelerating toward as. Observations do not match this theory, unless I'm understanding you wrong.

PJ,

 Faith!

Brett

alright now you guys are getting into some serious scientific stuff here, which means im lost.

as is for me, ill give it a century before we have a better idea on the beginning of the universe from science, since i dont understand the big bang theory yet, or think its very logical, but i also think scientists are not idiots, and wouldnt suggest something if it was b@t sh!t insane. therefore, whatever the scientists are currently debating, i say its plausible, maybe likely, and time will answer it.
and that i intend to check out some books when i have the time.

how do we define time? as i see it, we use it as the passing of what we percieve as something happening in the universe, but if we weren't hear would there still be time? if it goes on forever, is it still time?

if things have a beginning, is it possible that they actually dont have a beginning? by human logic, we assume everything must start and stop, and if we find no answers, we make stuff up.  why must there be a begenning?

as has been stated, if a creator needs to be created by a creator in turn, then there is a god. but how long will it go for? its an endless chain, so theoretically there would be an ulitmate god, but not in reality, as it never ends.

No,silly,God doesn't need to be created. :)

I myself believe that there Is a Concious Creator force,whatever form,name people give to Him.I feel that it really doesn't matter.What matters I think is that one believes or doesn't.I also think that religions are man made and distorted a bit as they may have other man given purpouses than the Creator himself would give.Jesus,mohamed,allah,buddha are spiritual teachers in my opinion and Jesus Christ was crucifyed by the romans from whom our modern world was inspired(infrastructure,divide and rule,social hierarchy,military,oppression and other "evolved and civilized" things).Of course many things come from greece and others ,but the main point is that WE the people we've been hearded,controlled,ruled by other kind of "force" than the Creator for thousands of years.I also think that from thousands of years of "evolution" and DOMESTICATION our wiew of reality is so distorted that most "civilized" people can't even imagine to live how we should not to mention that they would be incapable of survival without the machines that are keeping them in slavery.Many people are living in a self choosen well build confortable slavery built to perfectly use ones weak points like lazyness,fear and other un-conciousness rooted feelings.But our world is in constant change and after people have experienced living in the black box, and as more,and more people start to get out of it the more light shines into the box( In a room filled with light,if you open a box in wich is darkness,it wont fill the room with darkness ;) ) We are on this planet to learn and evolve and we are all on different levels and differentlessons and chapters,but "exam" is comming so everyone capable can get to the next level of living ;D Peace,love,unity and respect for one and all ! :) theres nothing hippy in this ;D

Not every idea and ideal associated with Hippies is/was ridiculous.  Equal rights for all, tolerance, love, peace, etc... aren't bad ideas for then and now.  From their comical dress, antics, and the fact that they were always high, we now see hippies as clowns, but hippies facilitated many meaningful changes in our society and were instrumental in ending a useless tragic war based in lies.  (holds up the peace sign and hollers "RIGHT ON!")  Where's my Nehru jacket and love beads?

Has there ever been a war that wasn't tragic and based on lies?

Aussie wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 1:22am:

Has there ever been a war that wasn't tragic and based on lies?

No and possibly.

well, world war 2 was pretty straight forward. hitler taking over countrys and poland was the last straw.

Aussie wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 1:22am:

Has there ever been a war that wasn't tragic and based on lies?

Depends on how you define war. The good old "you have something I want and I'm going to take it away from you" basis for armed conflict wouldn't seem to be based on lies. When you add "God says it's my right" is when you get problems.

Woonilsra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 6:56am:

well, world war 2 was pretty straight forward. hitler taking over countrys and poland was the last straw.

And in World War 2 there was the belief in the superiority of the Aryan race, despite Germans not being ethnically Aryan. I would call that a lie. Aryan is from the sanskrit Arya, the Indian word for Persia (and Aran is the word for Persian) and is the ancient form of Iran. Germans are most definitely not Iranian.

The whole Arian power and superior race the Nazis said was, in my opinion, complete bs. It was just an excuse to invade and go to war.  

Arians are the master race / Communism will end our way of life / Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction

Woonilsra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 6:56am:

well, world war 2 was pretty straight forward. hitler taking over countrys and poland was the last straw.

yES
Yes and no.  Hitler had a bunch of excuses for each attack involving trumped up stories of ethnic Germans being harmed in some way in these countries.  Initially there was some confusion as to Hitler's overall objectives.  

Rockman wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 3:57pm:

The whole Arian power and superior race the Nazis said was, in my opinion, complete bs. It was just an excuse to invade and go to war.   Arians are the master race / Communism will end our way of life / Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction

Small point of corretion: Arianism was an early branch of Christianity. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire most Goths were Arians.

Aryan is a whole different concept. It's a Persian term meaning "noble"  or "pure". Iran comes from Aryana, land of the Aryans. The Persians and northern Indians (speakers of Indo-Iranian languages) considedred themselves Aryan, and better than other peoples. How Europeans picked up the term to describe themselves goes beyond logic. Your average Punjabi,  Pakistani or Iranian doesn't match Hitler's view of a tall, blond racially pure Aryan.

If you want to PO some neo-Nazis, tell them Germany lost the war because they didn't have any Jews to run it for 'em.

HurlinThom wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 12:58pm:

Rockman wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 3:57pm: The whole Arian power and superior race the Nazis said was, in my opinion, complete bs. It was just an excuse to invade and go to war.   Arians are the master race / Communism will end our way of life / Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction Small point of corretion: Arianism was an early branch of Christianity. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire most Goths were Arians. Aryan is a whole different concept. It's a Persian term meaning "noble"  or "pure". Iran comes from Aryana, land of the Aryans. The Persians and northern Indians (speakers of Indo-Iranian languages) considedred themselves Aryan, and better than other peoples. How Europeans picked up the term to describe themselves goes beyond logic. Your average Punjabi,  Pakistani or Iranian doesn't match Hitler's view of a tall, blond racially pure Aryan. If you want to PO some neo-Nazis, tell them Germany lost the war because they didn't have any Jews to run it for 'em.

[smiley=wink.gif]

dangit, how did i forget the whole aryian super race! oh well, back to the drawing board.

on second thought, there are few people who would approve of unjust wars, so im starting to think
all countrys lie to start wars and convince the public its the right thing to do.

one extremely clean-cut and obvious example would be the current War on Cannabis here in the states, though I don't think the original lies were made to ban it, just sell papers, but it built and led to the unjust war we have yet today.


btw, i tried it about a week ago. If it gets legalized, then no way am i ever bothering to drink. It was pretty epic, and strange thing was, most of my homework that wasn't math related was actually easier to do ( and less boring) stoned, and i actually did better.

Cthulhu wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 6:25pm:

one extremely clean-cut and obvious example would be the current War on Cannabis here in the states, though I don't think the original lies were made to ban it, just sell papers, but it built and led to the unjust war we have yet today. btw, i tried it about a week ago. If it gets legalized, then no way am i ever bothering to drink. It was pretty epic, and strange thing was, most of my homework that wasn't math related was actually easier to do ( and less boring) stoned, and i actually did better.

I'll debate both politics and religion, but this is one debate I'll stay out of.

Cthulhu wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 6:25pm:

one extremely clean-cut and obvious example would be the current War on Cannabis here in the states, though I don't think the original lies were made to ban it, just sell papers, but it built and led to the unjust war we have yet today. btw, i tried it about a week ago. If it gets legalized, then no way am i ever bothering to drink. It was pretty epic, and strange thing was, most of my homework that wasn't math related was actually easier to do ( and less boring) stoned, and i actually did better.

 :-X

I would like to thank every atheist and agnostic on here for not being insulting. I'm dealing with someone right now who thinks that Christian is a synonym for "stupid f--k" in his own words. Thank you to every member of slinging.org for being better than that, I can't tell all of you how proud I am that we actually can have a rational discussion.

Cthulhu wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 6:25pm:

one extremely clean-cut and obvious example would be the current War on Cannabis here in the states, though I don't think the original lies were made to ban it, just sell papers, but it built and led to the unjust war we have yet today. btw, i tried it about a week ago. If it gets legalized, then no way am i ever bothering to drink. It was pretty epic, and strange thing was, most of my homework that wasn't math related was actually easier to do ( and less boring) stoned, and i actually did better.

Congratulations -- It sounds like you're about to become a habitual user.  :P
I hope you weren't planning on buying anything cool with your dispensible income.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 9:58pm:

I would like to thank every atheist and agnostic on here for not being insulting. I'm dealing with someone right now who thinks that Christian is a synonym for "stupid f--k" in his own words. Thank you to every member of slinging.org for being better than that, I can't tell all of you how proud I am that we actually can have a rational discussion.

I would call it "civil" but I would not call it "rational."
I simply do not see certain expressed views as qualifying as "rational."
By its nature, a belief based on "faith" really does not fall under the heading of "rationality."

I, being of agnostic beliefs with strong atheist leanings, probably share some opinions held by your acquaintance, but I have no wish to hurt or offend anyone, so I don't open up with both barrels in polite company. I like the people here too much. We don't all have to AGREE; we just have to get along.

me I believe that Christ was the first to make a Christian Church,  his own church, that is called the Orthodox Church, started by Christ himself not by some random guy like Luther,  or Joseph Smith, but Christ himself before he died on the cross he told peter that he would be the rock on which he would build his church, it has been around for 2000 years the 1st church, it means right way, greek orthos=right, doxa=belief orthodoxy hasnt been changed but modified several times, by way of ecumenical council  or a council of bishops to decide whether this or that to discuss and settle matters of church doctrine.  believe it or not but all those protestant churches come from the catholic church, they caused all those churches about 2-3000 denominations, as for the catholics they changed all the time so there is a big difference between modern catholics and those of 4th century,  but the orthodox church has been almost the same since before the fall of the roman empire with a few changes but not much, so we're as christ intended us to be, we have no protestants,  us and rome just split its called the great schism in 1054, since then the catholics have been protested against and ppl leaving their church to make their own, we didnt make our own Christ made it for us, so we're not from Luther or anyone else but Christ soo we've been through lots of persecution and martyrdoms and such but we're still going strong, did u know that 300 orthodox churches have been demolished because of clinton?  we were helping the wrong ppl when kosovo erupted,  radical islamists the albanians were basically replacing the serbian population, deporting them from their homeland that had been theirs for at least 1000yrs, its dumb how we helped nato bomb the serbs and basically help radical islamists conquer a new home,  nato hasnt done anything to help rebuild churches neither do we, like near ground 0, there is a church that hasnt been rebuilt but they'd be more than happy to build an islamic mosque

anyways heres a vid on the history of the orthodox church, not trying to convert anyone or anything but informing on its history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tirUy13Q_L8  BTW the narrator is Alec Boldwin's bro

I may be wrong, but I thought the Orthodox church was actually a break off from early christianity because they didnt agree with the choice of a particular pope.
But we would be wrong to assume that christianity remains similar to how Jesus preached it, in any of the christian religions. Since christianity was embraced by Rome, it was manipulated to suit politics and leaders. I am sure this is probably the same with all religions but dont know about them so well. Im not saying what is in the modern message is bad, but it has been changed and because it was changed so long ago, I dont think there is any way to retreive the original version.

As for my views, I dont believe but as some other members have said, I am envious of those who do. I see it as a great comfort to be able to put your faith in something so whole heartily and have that reassurance, but just at this moment I feel unable to do that.

Nemo

No,  it was the pope who wanted to control the eastern church,  they said no so the catholics split from us the early church,  and yes it is what Christ intended its his church started by himself not the pope,  or anyone else

here is the history

---

Uhmmm, the Orthodox church split from the Catholic church when they refused to accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcidon. Because less churches existed who rejected the council they split from the majority. And the modern church is based off of the teachings of the prophet Paul, who never met Jesus. Paul was the one who made the decision to copnvert Gentiles while Jesus only preached to Jews. I think that Christ's goal was tgo reform Judaism, not split from it. Notice that Jesus never told people to stop attending synagogue. Originally after Jesus died there were several rival groups of christians including polytheists, but Paul's group managed to convert some Romans who spread the religion to the point that it became the official state religion. Your diagram, though colorful, fails to take into account the schisms within the orthodox church. There are actually 4 orthdox traditions including: the Assyrian Church of the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Inside each there are sub-groups with different beliefs as well. Inside the Oriental Orthodox Church is the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church which is the oldest continuous church in existence. It was founded by Ethiopian Jews and converted to Christianity before Christ's death. Their canonical bible contains 81 books, much more than the 66 recognised by the Protestants and the 78 recognised by the Roman Catholic Church.

The early church or orthodox church never split from anybody,  after Paul introduced orthodoxy to the romans, they made their own church and kept changing everything all the time,  and still having their imperialistic attitude wanted the eastern church to be controlled by one pope,  of course we have many bishops, some Patriarchs in charge of certain areas and Patriarchates,  and Metropolitans governing cities and countries but never anyone person in control of the whole church in general, and forgive me if im wrong I dont know absolutely everything there is to know,  I just know that it is the church of Christ himself,  spread by his Apostles after he was crucified and taught Christ's teachings

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches were one until the year 451 when they split over the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Assuming Jesus died before age 51 that's more than 400 years together. The Pope was not an original part of the Catholic Church. He was originally the Archbishop of Rome, but had great infuence because he had more parishoners in his geographcal area than the other bishops and archbishops.
[edit]Doing more research, 451 was when the first Orthodox Church split from Roman Catholicism to form oriental orthodoxy. The Greek Orthodox Church (now known as Eastern Orthodox) didn't split until 1054 due to geographic constraints on the papacy.[/edit]

yes and after 451 they came farther apart, but the orthodox church stayed the same, but some changes to it very little,  like for example they used to confess in public long ago, now we do confession with a priest nowadays

Lots of churches claim to be the true church. I think every major denomination is under condemnation at this point. Too much change to suit an unchangeable God. Another debate not worth getting in. I would talk to someone about this in person if they wanted to, but over the internet it's too easy to take things the wrong way and people get there feelings hurt, or cut and paste a massive amount of "evidence" from Uncle Google. Neither of which is terribly helpful.

Its true though,  and I understand that ppl don't like truth it sometimes isn't what they want etc soo they get hurt etc...

Little, your chart is incomploete. You left out a number of branches that died out or were suppressed, like Arians, Monophysites, Cathars, Nestorians, the pre-Catholic Celtic church, etc.

There will probably never be an agreement on whether the Orthodox or Roman Catholic church is the breakaway.  

yeah I know it doesnt have everything

HurlinThom wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 11:09pm:

Little, your chart is incomploete. You left out a number of branches that died out or were suppressed, like Arians, Monophysites, Cathars, Nestorians, the pre-Catholic Celtic church, etc. There will probably never be an agreement on whether the Orthodox or Roman Catholic church is the breakaway.

Actually the Oriental Orthodox Church was the monophysites. That's the old Roman Catholic pejorative for them.

Yeah

Morphy wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 11:02pm:

Lots of churches claim to be the true church. .

Doesn´t every church claim to be the true church, I mean anything else would be a bit odd now wouldn´t it?

here's evolution Simpson's style'

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

Jabames wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:57am:

here's evolution Simpson's style' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY&feature=related

That's a keeper! [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif]

i know man

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:12am:

Morphy wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 11:02pm: Lots of churches claim to be the true church. . Doesn´t every church claim to be the true church, I mean anything else would be a bit odd now wouldn´t it?

Most churches claim non-exclusivity with other churches. Example: Baptists think Methodist believe the same things and will go to Heaven despite not having the same exact practices. The minutiae are irrelevant.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:12am:

Morphy wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 11:02pm: Lots of churches claim to be the true church. . Doesn´t every church claim to be the true church, I mean anything else would be a bit odd now wouldn´t it?

Hehe...you would think so huh...but nope.   ;D

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 6:38pm:

Notice that Jesus never told people to stop attending synagogue.

This is but one example that illustrates a point I think needs to be made:

We don't have any writings signed, " ... Love, your savior, Jesus."  We don't know what he told people.  We know what people later claimed he had told people.

I would re-write the sentence as, "Notice that according to what people later wrote that Jesus had said, he never told people to stop attending synagogue."

P.J.

 Why so much doubt about Christ?Do you have opinions on buddhism or muslim?Why so negative?Please explain all your angst.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 8:25pm:

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 6:38pm: Notice that Jesus never told people to stop attending synagogue. This is but one example that illustrates a point I think needs to be made: We don't have any writings signed, " ... Love, your savior, Jesus."  We don't know what he told people.  We know what people later claimed he had told people. I would re-write the sentence as, "Notice that according to what people later wrote that Jesus had said, he never told people to stop attending synagogue."

Okay, Jesus was never quoted as telling people to stop attending synagogue. But it's just semantics over the verb I used.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:43pm:

P.J.  Why so much doubt about Christ?Do you have opinions on buddhism or muslim?Why so negative?Please explain all your angst.

Of course I do. But those are not the religions at the center of the discussion here.

The "angst" I have is that it's my personal belief that these are all myths, and I find it frustrating when things that cannot possibly be substantiated or corroborated are passed off as fact.

I didn't say anything particularly instigatory, here -- I was just remarking that the bible is secondhand "word" of Jesus. It's people who came along much later, presuming to tell posterity what someone had said. It's like if I went around purporting to report on conversations that went on between Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Of what possible validity could they be?

If you had the minutes written down from the continental congressional meetings then it would be plausibly valid.

I am a Christian I believe in a six-day creation (about 6,000 years ago) a flood (about 4,400 years ago) and I believe that the Bible is the inflallable word of God.

What are your views?

 That was  the initial post.I took that to mean,"What are your views on creation/evolution?".I did not take that to be lets pick on his views,or just focus on that in particular,but more like,let's be positive and think about something worthwhile,and not just focus on doubt and fear and indecision.Are humans the smartest beings in the universe and their word the end all,be all?Is all that we think the definitive word because of our scientific mind?

Please.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

If you had the minutes written down from the continental congressional meetings then it would be plausibly valid.

So who wrote all the stuff that Jesus supposedly said?  Paul or somebody?  Did he have "minutes" from all the times Jesus preached hither and yon?

Even if he did have them at hand to write the original Christian bible, there are now thousands of different version of the bible, passed down like a game of "Telephone."  It's impossible to know how close or far from the original writings they are.

Think about Edgar Allen Poe.  He wrote in the 19th century.  Even to this day, when you read "The Raven," you come across versions that say, " ... swung by seraphim whose footfalls tinkled on the tufted floor," and versions that say, " ... swung by angels."  It appears impossible to know which he really originally wrote -- and that was within a couple of hundred years ago.

wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 7:21pm:

I am a Christian I believe in a six-day creation (about 6,000 years ago) a flood (about 4,400 years ago) and I believe that the Bible is the inflallable word of God. What are your views?  That was  the initial post.I took that to mean,"What are your views on creation/evolution?".I did not take that to be lets pick on his views,or just focus on that in particular,but more like,let's be positive and think about something worthwhile,and not just focus on doubt and fear and indecision.Are humans the smartest beings in the universe and their word the end all,be all?Is all that we think the definitive word because of our scientific mind? Please.

Speaking of "Please," does the bible even address the idea of the possibility that "the smartest beings in the universe" might live on another planet?

As far as I know, the bible presumes that ALL THERE IS THAT IS WORTH MENTIONING is right here on earth.  The bible doesn't allude to there being intelligent life on other planets.  I don't think that the bible even mentions other planets.

Another thing that seems to be in dispute here is whether anyone has indeed been "picked on," or whether anyone is being hypersensitive and calling plain old logical challenges "picking on."

i believe its inevitable that a creationism debate will lead to questioning christianity and religion in general.  but i dont think its a bad idea. as long as everyone is being polite, no personal insults, and having a good ol time, no harm done.

and id like to agree with pj in the matter concerning the universe,
what does the bible mention about the rest of the universe, the not earth part.

i have no idea. i have full intention of reading the bible and full knowledge that i find it boring and challenging to get through, as well as complicated. which is why it wont happen for a while.

No one has been picked on in my estimation but what does that mean, it's only my opinion. People do tend to have thin skin sometimes on the internet and I do wonder how some people make it through this world as they seem on the verge of shattering like glass at the smallest quip. But everyone on slinging.org seems pretty cool.

You bring up some good points about the bible PJ. There are answers to every question you have brought up but I am too tired at the moment to write them all down. And they are just my personal opinions anyways. IMHO, The big problem is, when asking spiritual questions you will get spiritual answers. Which is generally unacceptable to the non-believer asking them. It is ok to posit a spiritual question, especially if it shows one's doubts on the matter, but then somehow unacceptable to receive spiritual answers in response, even if they would seem to satisfy the problem, at least from a spiritual point of view. Or perhaps I should say especially if they would satisfy the problem...

So I rarely bother. Anyways this is how I see it. If these are sincere questions let me know and I wouldn't mind taking a stab at them, not that I think it would sway your beliefs or anything. But I think it's possible to have a serious conversation just to hear one person's side on a matter even if you don't believe or agree with it.   ;)

there's soo many creation myths that the one from the bible is similar to others that there was a void or there was very little light or something like that.  but it just gets me really stumped how old everything is and the thought that God was never created by anyone that he has always been,  it scares me and amazes me at the same time how is anything anything?  how can everything be made when there was nothing?  when nothing was nothing not even a molecule?  i dont think the mind can think of things of this scale its just too huge almost neverending, of course many ppl dont believe in God but thats their own beliefs,  we all have our own beliefs and its everyones right to believe what they want to what ever it is.

Well, they are indeed "sincere questions" in that I mean them earnestly, and in that I see them as major flaws in the "explanation" of the order of creation offered by religious doctrine.  I would not say, however, that I "sincerely" expect that I will ever get faith- or spirituality-based answers that satisfy me.  I just don't think that they are possible.  That's "how I see it."

Fair enough. I would never want to try to force anyone to believe something they did not feel comfortable believing.

I watched your video on youtube yesterday. The introduction one. Pretty cool stuff. Good to put a face to a name.

my movie or someone elses?

Jabames wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 8:33pm:

my movie or someone elses?

PJ's., didn't know you had one, got a link?

Morphy wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 8:32pm:

Fair enough. I would never want to try to force anyone to believe something they did not feel comfortable believing. I watched your video on youtube yesterday. The introduction one. Pretty cool stuff. Good to put a face to a name.

LOL!  It's terribly out of date.  I don't even have the facial hair, currently!  And I don't live at the same house!

Oh, and I lost the wallet that contained all those cards, and am in the tedious process of getting them replaced (some of which can't be replaced because they were essentially just souvenirs, like the library card from the town where I grew up, and my Long Island blood donor card).

But the who-I-am stuff, that's still more or less the same.

Morphy wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 8:36pm:

Jabames wrote on Sep 24th, 2010 at 8:33pm: my movie or someone elses? PJ's., didn't know you had one, got a link?

nevermind, yes i had a link

Well by all means send me to your link so I can watch your video little! hehe...  :D

u dont have to watch it its on this thread a few posts pages back, hmmm i sense sarcasm :)

Not at all. I am truly interested. I will look for it.

some famous ppl that are/were Orthodox Christians,  some of the ppl are from long ago I didnt know the kardashian sisters were orthodox,  even jack johnson that boxer i think or who was he, mila jovavich from resident evil movies, tina fey etc...
http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/list/celebrity-categories.asp?FD=religion&ID=13

Uh, isn't the word "orthodox" supposed to be followed by something? I mean, there's orthodox Jews, Greek orthodox Christians ... It's too vague to simply say "orthodox."

ohh my bad,  I meant Orthodox Christians,  whether it be Greek, Russian, or anything else,  they are not separate they may have different cultures that are orthodox christians, but still one in communion with each other,  if u are russian orthodox, u can go to a greek church and still have communion for example, and soo many other places in the world,  but there are other orthodox christians that still hold sway to the old beliefs, ppl that havent adhered to the majority, but still orthodox, they are called old believers, we can still go to church with them but not receive communion from them because they refuse to accept the changes from the seven eccumenical councils or something rather,  u can look at both churches and wont find a difference,  but they dont usually travel anywhere all that often and confine them selves to their own churches and dont go to services of other orthodox christians,  me i have been to an Antiochian church before, i dont just stay in one church or one area,  i love going to other orthodox churches and parishes of different areas.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 9:40pm:

Uh, isn't the word "orthodox" supposed to be followed by something? I mean, there's orthodox Jews, Greek orthodox Christians ... It's too vague to simply say "orthodox."

okay man i corrected that part

There's no shortage of celebrity-types with all kinds out-there beliefs, y'know. There's Cruise and Travolta being scientologists, and Madonna being a Kabbalist. ...

yeah

In some of the older greek texts of the old testament (I don't know about the versions that preceeded them) God "Separated the waters of the heavens from the water of the Earth." A possible, if tenuous, reference to other planets. Personally the creation story is allegorical to me, and it isn't until the story of Cain and Abel that I feel the Bible is being literal.

Ah, now we have to delve into the morass of the "is it LITERAL" debate. And of course, as soon as believers cluck at us nonbelievers, "Tsk -- it isn't meant to be taken literally!" everything about the discussion changes radically.

So who on earth is the designated decider of what's literal versus figurative in the bible?

Don't you think that if it's God's word, God would've been pretty careful about actually making it comprehensible?

Literal or not is a debate we believers have amongst ourselves. once we decide who's right we'll let you know. my general belief is that every event is literal, excluding creation/Garden of Eden. No one was there for the creation to witness it, and talking snakes are a bit much for me to believe as absolute truth. ASide from that I also think the Geneologies list clans and not individuals so that they go back much farther than 6,000 years. Every "son" makes moer sense to me as being a new Branch of the family that became  its own clan.


peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 25^th, 2010 at 1:45pm:

Don't you think that if it's God's word, God would've been pretty careful about actually making it comprehensible?

I look at the Bible as the history of the Hebrew people with their rationalizations for certain events.So far as I know the only group who unanimously claims that their religious text is the unadulterated word of their god are Muslims. Buddhists and Taoists make no such claims, and Christians don't agree on whether it is or not.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 25^th, 2010 at 2:07pm:

Literal or not is a debate we believers have amongst ourselves. once we decide who's right we'll let you know. my general belief is that every event is literal, excluding creation/Garden of Eden. No one was there for the creation to witness it, and talking snakes are a bit much for me to believe as absolute truth. ASide from that I also think the Geneologies list clans and not individuals so that they go back much farther than 6,000 years. Every "son" makes moer sense to me as being a new Branch of the family that became  its own clan.

I have to say, at this point, you've fully thrown me. I cannot see how one can reconcile making his own independent decisions about what to take literally or figuratively from the bible. I just don't see that as anything remotely logical.

And if believers actually argue amongst themselves over this, it means that one side has to be wrong in order for the other to be right. When will one side come out definitively on top, and how will that occur? Only when that happens will anyone really know what to believe. And even then, it isn't necessarily guaranteed that the correct side will win the debate and have their version of things prevail.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 2:16am:

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 25th, 2010 at 2:07pm: Literal or not is a debate we believers have amongst ourselves. once we decide who's right we'll let you know. my general belief is that every event is literal, excluding creation/Garden of Eden. No one was there for the creation to witness it, and talking snakes are a bit much for me to believe as absolute truth. ASide from that I also think the Geneologies list clans and not individuals so that they go back much farther than 6,000 years. Every "son" makes moer sense to me as being a new Branch of the family that became  its own clan. I have to say, at this point, you've fully thrown me. I cannot see how one can reconcile making his own independent decisions about what to take literally or figuratively from the bible. I just don't see that as anything remotely logical. And if believers actually argue amongst themselves over this, it means that one side has to be wrong in order for the other to be right. When will one side come out definitively on top, and how will that occur? Only when that happens will anyone really know what to believe. And even then, it isn't necessarily guaranteed that the correct side will win the debate and have their version of things prevail.

PJ,

I can't help thinking you judge "Christians and Bible adherents" by much stricter rules than adherents of your own "religion". For example you rightly point out that there are no writings directly attributable to Christ and all alleged quotes are in fact reported speech. However at least three of the Gospels are written by people who were eyewitnesses; fairly reasonable to assume the exact wording may have been changed a little but the meaning to be correct. If Lyell or Huxley or some other of Darwin's contemporaries were to recall an quote his words would you immediately jump in and claim what they said was nonsense?

Evolutionists will freely admit they don't know anything concrete about millions of years of evolution of the earliest life forms because being soft bodied they left no fossil record. Nor are evolutions in agreement about many things about how evolution worked for those life forms which are in the fossil record. Yet you don't criticise them asking how we can believe they really know when they admit there are huge unknowable gaps in their knowledge and major differences of opinion on the things that can be known.

Finally, perhaps a minor point, but your constant insistence on using lower case as in, "god" and "christ" etc. is really somewhat silly. It should be beneath you. It makes you come across as totally closed minded and petty. If you want to be the Champion of Reason you should at least attempt to be reasonable.

fist, what movies on youtube by little and pj?

second, God and Christ are supposed to be capitalized?

Woonilsra wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 11:00am:

fist, what movies on youtube by little and pj? second, God and Christ are supposed to be capitalized?

Well, Christ refers to a specific person, and as a proper noun should be capitalized. That's just grammar. In Orthodox Jewish culture the name of God is never spoken, so it would not be spelled, either. So the point would be moot. There are plenty of gods: Huitzilopochtli, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, etc. So the rules on capitalizing there would be ambiguous.

The general rule of capitalizing God is when useing it as a pronoun such as talking about a specific god or when tied with another pronoun, but when talking about a god as in a group or set of things leave it lower case. For example: Apollo was a god. He was a Roman God.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 2:16am:

I have to say, at this point, you've fully thrown me. I cannot see how one can reconcile making his own independent decisions about what to take literally or figuratively from the bible. I just don't see that as anything remotely logical. And if believers actually argue amongst themselves over this, it means that one side has to be wrong in order for the other to be right. When will one side come out definitively on top, and how will that occur? Only when that happens will anyone really know what to believe. And even then, it isn't necessarily guaranteed that the correct side will win the debate and have their version of things prevail.

It goes back to the non-exclusivity thing. No one "knows" as you are fond of pointing out, so the belief is that God won't punish us for minor differences in faith if we are earnest in that faith. There is a line in the Bible where God says,
Quote:

"31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."-Matthew 12:31-32

This is usually taken to mean that if you believe in christ your other beliefs are less important provided you have belief.

³²Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."-Matthew 12:31-32[/quote] This is usually taken to mean that if you believe in christ your other beliefs are less important provided you have belief. [/quote]

lets say a pedophile or serial killer believes in Christ with all their heart. does this mean they get to go to heaven, because their love of Christ outweighs the crimes they have commited?

Woonilsra wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 4:51pm:

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 26th, 2010 at 1:20pm: 32 Quote: Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."-Matthew 12:31-32 This is usually taken to mean that if you believe in christ your other beliefs are less important provided you have belief. lets say a pedophile or serial killer believes in Christ with all their heart. does this mean they get to go to heaven, because their love of Christ outweighs the crimes they have commited?

I think both pedophilia and sociopathy are diseases based on psychological research, so there is something wrong with those people. Unfortunately we don't know how to fix these people.

For sin, there is no "outweighs" anything. If they are a horrible person then they are a horrible person. If they were a horrible person, but has been redeemed then they can make it into heaven. The only unforgivable sin is disbelieving without doubt. Last minute conversions are a grey area, though. But a Christian who is perfectly sane and kills does commit a sin, and if they die without repenting then they will not go to Heaven. When I say repenting I do not mean saying I'm sorry, I mean being willing to do anything to take it back and wanting to undo the mistake. but it's also more than that, they have to realize that they cannot undo it, and resign themself to whatever punishment is in store (and not regret whatever out of fear of the punishment) and then they will be forgiven. Some groups (Kaballah, Roman Catholicism, and a few others) have a concept of Purgatory where you work off your sins. Other groups don't have a belief in Purgatory, but a full belief in grace which means that if you trly are sorry then you will be accepted into heaven without having to earn it and without deserving it.

U see if ppl dont agree with Creationism,  or Evolution,  or religious belief, or Atheism,  or anything else;  then what do we as a whole believe/agree with?  

Jabames wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 5:20pm:

U see if ppl dont agree with Creationism,  or Evolution,  or religious belief, or Atheism,  or anything else;  then what do we as a whole believe/agree with?

What?

idk Im just saying,  just a thought that occurred to me

Jabames wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:

idk Im just saying,  just a thought that occurred to me

I'm not following the thought. I have no idea what you mean.

Jabames wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 5:20pm:

U see if ppl dont agree with Creationism,  or Evolution,  or religious belief, or Atheism,  or anything else;  then what do we as a whole believe/agree with?

How about "futility"? :P

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 5:30pm:

Jabames wrote on Sep 26th, 2010 at 5:29pm: idk Im just saying,  just a thought that occurred to me I'm not following the thought. I have no idea what you mean.

Im just saying that we have a hard time understanding eachother,  even though we might speak the same language we have lots of differences and can never fully become as one nation much like in the Bible, the Tower of Babel,  where supposedly we spoke as one and achieved great feats,  until they wanted to build a tower up to heaven and God divided us so we can never be absolutely one and the same and be powerful,  of course there has been many a powerful empires,  but have they lasted a long time?  it seems not,  they always have an end

Ahhh! Then I agree with Jeffrey.

what's futility?  wait a minute ill look it up

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 5:14pm:

[quote author=Woonilsra link=1282670672/240#248 date=1285534291][quote author=Masiakasaurus link=1282670672/240#247 date=1285521620]32[quote] For sin, there is no "outweighs" anything. If they are a horrible person then they are a horrible person. If they were a horrible person, but has been redeemed then they can make it into heaven. The only unforgivable sin is disbelieving without doubt. Last minute conversions are a grey area, though. But a Christian who is perfectly sane and kills does commit a sin, and if they die without repenting then they will not go to Heaven. When I say repenting I do not mean saying I'm sorry, I mean being willing to do anything to take it back and wanting to undo the mistake. but it's also more than that, they have to realize that they cannot undo it, and resign themself to whatever punishment is in store (and not regret whatever out of fear of the punishment) and then they will be forgiven. Some groups (Kaballah, Roman Catholicism, and a few others) have a concept of Purgatory where you work off your sins. Other groups don't have a belief in Purgatory, but a full belief in grace which means that if you trly are sorry then you will be accepted into heaven without having to earn it and without deserving it.

Different groups have different ideas about God's criteria for people getting into heaven ... So how can anyone settle on a belief that it IS, FOR CERTAIN, one way or another?

This all makes no sense to me. It comes across as being nothing but folklore and guesses. No one's ever come back from heaven and informed mankind that there was or wasn't a purgatory, or whether there are murderers there.

My conviction is that these flaws in the concept of heaven serve simply to demonstrate that it's a man-contrived thing. If it were truly from God, it would not only be perfect (and thus we would not be able to point out flaws in it), it would also be explained perfectly in any bible that was really handed down from God.

18 pages of debate over several things that we can't prove but have faith in! jeez this is even longer than the thread on the rockman sling.

Yes but,  belief is good without which we'd have nothing,  without believing in anything what is there to put your heart in?  I remember a passage in John 20:29 Jesus told Thomas that because he has seen him that he has believed;  blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.  

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 8:14pm:

Different groups have different ideas about God's criteria for people getting into heaven ... So how can anyone settle on a belief that it IS, FOR CERTAIN, one way or another?

No they don't. They have different ideas on how long it takes. Isn't choosing to not believe settling on a belief that is for certain?

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 8:14pm:

This all makes no sense to me. It comes across as being nothing but folklore and guesses. No one's ever come back from heaven and informed mankind that there was or wasn't a purgatory, or whether there are murderers there. My conviction is that these flaws in the concept of heaven serve simply to demonstrate that it's a man-contrived thing. If it were truly from God, it would not only be perfect (and thus we would not be able to point out flaws in it), it would also be explained perfectly in any bible that was really handed down from God.

You aren't pointing out flaws in the religion, you are pointing out flaws in people who believe a religion. Again, the only religion that unanimously claims to be the direct word from God is Islam. Christianity has been organized by people after intervention from God. For those Christians who believe in divine inspiration, the important concepts remain unchanged and those things that do change are only by a small ammount from translation.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 8:14pm:

If it were truly from God, it would not only be perfect (and thus we would not be able to point out flaws in it), it would also be explained perfectly in any bible that was really handed down from God.

I don't understand your fixation with an explanation for every minutiae. I suspect that this is the point where the debate grinds to a halt because I don't have an explanation for what happened between the lines, since to me they don't matter. They appear to be major sticking points for you. The only thing I can say is a quote from one of my favorite people, the Revend Lynn Smilie Nesbitt:
Quote:

My take on this is that taking the Bible literally in some cases means not taking it seriously. When the psalms say that the trees clap their hands in praise, does that mean they have fingers? No, because the literal meaning does violence to the intended meaning.

If the Bible was explained out in every detail, I'd bet that there would be more dicrepancies like this.

I'm not talking about believing that trees literally clapped their hands. I think you knew that, though.

My point is that if the bible does not lay out plainly how one gets into heaven, and how the process goes, and what the criteria are, then it's not reasonable for anyone to claim to know. Hence, it's people's imaginations that fill in the gaps, and those don't hold any water for anyone asking how it all really goes. I'm not asking for parables, I'm asking for the ACTUAL way that God REALLY handles these affairs. From
what I can tell, NO ONE KNOWS, but LOTS of people claim to.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 10:43pm:

I'm not talking about believing that trees literally clapped their hands. I think you knew that, though.

I didn't mean to insult you, that was a direct quote about errors in the Bible and applies to both taking the Bible literally and gaps in the Bible.


peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 10:43pm:

My point is that if the bible does not lay out plainly how one gets into heaven, and how the process goes, and what the criteria are, then it's not reasonable for anyone to claim to know. Hence, it's people's imaginations that fill in the gaps, and those don't hold any water for anyone asking how it all really goes. I'm not asking for parables, I'm asking for the ACTUAL way that God REALLY handles these affairs. From what I can tell, NO ONE KNOWS, but LOTS of people claim to.

I can't tell you what others believe on this, but there are two prominent places that deal with the requirements to get into Heaven. The first is Psalm 15:1-5
Quote:

LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill? 2He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from his heart 3and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellowman, 4who despises a vile man but honors those who fear the LORD, who keeps his oath even when it hurts, 5who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.

and the second is I Corinthians 15:3-4
Quote:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also recieved, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

So, you must live an ascetic life and commit no sin to deserve heaven, but Jesus died and bears the burden of sin for us so that we may go to Heaven despite being unable to live perfectly. Everything else is trivial, so I say again that I don't understand why it needs to be explained. The process is explained in Ephesians 2:8
Quote:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

You do nothing to get into heaven, it is an unmerited gift (the definition of grace) through Jesus.

Um, a big deal is made that "God gave his only begotten son" to get us redemption from our sins, but what I can't figure out is why.

God is GOD: If he wanted to, he could create a billion "only begotten sons." He created Creation, after all, and all the physical and other laws that govern it. He could make a square root of -1 if he wanted to. I just don't see how the sacrifice of Jesus is any big deal -- to God or even to Jesus himself. They both knew that after Jesus died on the cross, he'd immediately join God in Heaven!!

If you knew that you were the actual son of GOD, the Creator of All That Is, would you fear death? Would you fear dying on a cross, knowing that eternal paradise awaited you? I'd let them execute me with a hydrofluoric acid enema if I could somehow know that it guaranteed me Heaven! Because the fact is, no one here now has it guaranteed.

So really, why do people act as though God made some big sacrifice by sending Jesus to buy us salvation through his crucifixion? God is omniscient: He knew how it would all turn out. And if it bothered him to see his son crucified, he could have just written that out of the script. *POOF* "Jesus doesn't have to die for mankind to be saved!" Done!

And anyway, how is it reasonable and fair that mankind is forever haunted by Adam and Eve's original sin?! Even we imperfect humans understand the unfairness of making sons pay for sins of their fathers! But God doesn't?!

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 3:31am:

God is GOD: If he wanted to, he could create a billion "only begotten sons." He created Creation, after all, and all the physical and other laws that govern it. He could make a square root of -1 if he wanted to. I just don't see how the sacrifice of Jesus is any big deal -- to God or even to Jesus himself. They both knew that after Jesus died on the cross, he'd immediately join God in Heaven!!

Jesus did not immediately join God in Heaven. In the apostles creed, "Jesus descended into Hell. After three days he ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty". That is significance of Jesus coming back from the dead briefly before going to Heaven. Even three days in Hell has got to be hell. I also have to emphasize that we do not know if he thought he would go to Heaven, judging by the way he cried "why have you forsaken me" while on the cross I imagine he wasn't sure himself.

Lastly, if God made the physical laws of the universe and he made the rules for getting into Heaven the why do we assume that he casually dissmisses these rules? Couldn't all of his miracles work within the rules He's already set, and if so wouldn't that mean his requirement to work of our sin must be paid somehow? That is how I was taught, and now that I'm an adult I don't see anything wrong with it.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 3:31am:

And anyway, how is it reasonable and fair that mankind is forever haunted by Adam and Eve's original sin?! Even we imperfect humans understand the unfairness of making sons pay for sins of their fathers! But God doesn't?!

Original sin is a murky top[ic, and I don't have time to address it right now. I'll get back to you after class.

If God wanted to make a point, God could easily speak to every single man, woman and children in every possible language in every possible location. Just a big booming voice from nowhere that said "I AM THE REAL GOD, HERE´S WHAT YOU DO FROM NOW ON.

Instead God seems to relay on prophets who could very well be just some scam artists, a crackpot or a very intelligent person who wants to rule over a bunch of people by calling himself God´s instrument.    

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 3:31am:

And anyway, how is it reasonable and fair that mankind is forever haunted by Adam and Eve's original sin?! Even we imperfect humans understand the unfairness of making sons pay for sins of their fathers! But God doesn't?!

Quote:

Original sin, sometimes called ancestral sin, is, according to a doctrine proposed in Christian theology, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature," to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt. Those who uphold this doctrine look to the teaching of Paul the Apostle in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 for its scriptural base, and see it as perhaps implied in an Old Testament passage Psalm 51:5. Some Christians do not accept the doctrine indicated by the terms "original sin" or "ancestral sin", which are not found in the Bible. The same applies to terms such as "Trinity" used to express other Christian doctrines.In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants". In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam and Eve's particular sin. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam and Eve.

It is not the Churchs' positions that we are being punished for Adam's and Eve's sins. Further, the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil revealed sin to Eve and Adam, it was not a sin in and of itself to eat the fruit.

Rockman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 6:57pm:

If God wanted to make a point, God could easily speak to every single man, woman and children in every possible language in every possible location. Just a big booming voice from nowhere that said "I AM THE REAL GOD, HERE´S WHAT YOU DO FROM NOW ON. Instead God seems to relay on prophets who could very well be just some scam artists, a crackpot or a very intelligent person who wants to rule over a bunch of people by calling himself God´s instrument.

Has God told you what he can or cannot do, outside of the Bible? If he has then I can understand your argument. If you have not had a conversation with God, then I cannot see how you would know what God chooses to do or how God can communicate with us best, especially if there is no recorded precedent. I can find nowhere in the Bible where God speaks speaks directly to a multitude in every language present.

Acts 2:1-12


1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

Morphy wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 8:23pm:

Acts 2:1-12 1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.  2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.  3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.  4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.  5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.  6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.  7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?  8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?  9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,  10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,  11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.  12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

This is not God addressing a multitude, it's the gift of tongues to " just some scam artists, a crackpot or a very intelligent person who wants to rule over a bunch of people by calling himself God´s instrument". :) But thanks, you've made it clear that you are reluctant to get drawn into this. I appreciate your help with the Biblical quotes.

Rockman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 6:57pm:

If God wanted to make a point, God could easily speak to every single man, woman and children in every possible language in every possible location. Just a big booming voice from nowhere that said "I AM THE REAL GOD, HERE´S WHAT YOU DO FROM NOW ON. Instead God seems to relay on prophets who could very well be just some scam artists, a crackpot or a very intelligent person who wants to rule over a bunch of people by calling himself God´s instrument.

Amen!

And all that being the case, I am a non-believer.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 8:34pm:

Rockman wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 6:57pm: If God wanted to make a point, God could easily speak to every single man, woman and children in every possible language in every possible location. Just a big booming voice from nowhere that said "I AM THE REAL GOD, HERE´S WHAT YOU DO FROM NOW ON. Instead God seems to relay on prophets who could very well be just some scam artists, a crackpot or a very intelligent person who wants to rule over a bunch of people by calling himself God´s instrument.     Amen!

;D

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 8:10pm:

Rockman wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 6:57pm: If God wanted to make a point, God could easily speak to every single man, woman and children in every possible language in every possible location. Just a big booming voice from nowhere that said "I AM THE REAL GOD, HERE´S WHAT YOU DO FROM NOW ON. Instead God seems to relay on prophets who could very well be just some scam artists, a crackpot or a very intelligent person who wants to rule over a bunch of people by calling himself God´s instrument.     Has God told you what he can or cannot do, outside of the Bible? If he has then I can understand your argument. If you have not had a conversation with God, then I cannot see how you would know what God chooses to do or how God can communicate with us best, especially if there is no recorded precedent. I can find nowhere in the Bible where God speaks speaks directly to a multitude in every language present.

God is widely understood to be "OMNIPOTENT."

Are you saying, as a defense against Rockman's assertion, that God is limited?

"Almighty God" is limited?

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 8:37pm:

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 8:10pm: Rockman wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 6:57pm: If God wanted to make a point, God could easily speak to every single man, woman and children in every possible language in every possible location. Just a big booming voice from nowhere that said "I AM THE REAL GOD, HERE´S WHAT YOU DO FROM NOW ON. Instead God seems to relay on prophets who could very well be just some scam artists, a crackpot or a very intelligent person who wants to rule over a bunch of people by calling himself God´s instrument.     Has God told you what he can or cannot do, outside of the Bible? If he has then I can understand your argument. If you have not had a conversation with God, then I cannot see how you would know what God chooses to do or how God can communicate with us best, especially if there is no recorded precedent. I can find nowhere in the Bible where God speaks speaks directly to a multitude in every language present. God is widely understood to be "OMNIPOTENT." Are you saying, as a defense against Rockman's assertion, that God is limited? "Almighty God" is limited?

Far from it, I'm saying God has never chosen that course of action, and there is probably a reason for it. If you heard a booming voice in your head right now, would you start praying or go to a Psychologist/Neurologist? Is that really the best way to reach you, personally, because I think everyone needs an individualized approach. Next, for those of us who do believe God speaks to us, we hear that quiet voice at the back of our mind widely attributed to be a conscience.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:

Morphy wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 8:23pm: Acts 2:1-12 1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.  2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.  3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.  4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.  5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.  6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.  7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?  8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?  9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,  10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,  11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.  12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? This is not God addressing a multitude, it's the gift of tongues to " just some scam artists, a crackpot or a very intelligent person who wants to rule over a bunch of people by calling himself God´s instrument". :) But thanks, you've made it clear that you are reluctant to get drawn into this. I appreciate your help with the Biblical quotes.

Can't tell if your being sarcastic or not, so hard on the internet sometimes...  :-/ :-?
But it doesn't matter. I appreciate your efforts to spread understanding about the most important things. Thought that quote might help, although I haven't read this whole thread so maybe not...

By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim.

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 10:09am:

By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim.

The third definition on Merriam-Webster's Online for believe is "to hold an opinion". The third definition for belief is "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence". Atheism is not a religious belief, but it is a belief in the truth of the statement "There is no God" and some people definitely hold an opinion on it.

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 10:09am:

By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim.

Depends on one's definition of atheism. As I see things atheism is a belief, without proof, of the non-existence of (any) god. Agnosticism demands proof that a god exists.

In regard to multitudes from various countries understanding one language, early Christianity developed in the Eastern Roman Empire, where Koine Greek was the offical language and spoken everywhere. (Latin was also official but less common). People from outside the Empire would have to speak Greek to do business. Not remarkable at all.  

Morphy wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 10:46pm:

Can't tell if your being sarcastic or not, so hard on the internet sometimes...  :-/ :-? But it doesn't matter. I appreciate your efforts to spread understanding about the most important things. Thought that quote might help, although I haven't read this whole thread so maybe not...

I'm not! I was thanking you for looking up those passages, despite your reservations on debating this.

HurlinThom wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 11:09am:

wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 10:09am: By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim. Depends on one's definition of atheism. As I see things atheism is a belief, without proof, of the non-existence of (any) god. Agnosticism demands proof that a god exists.

If you break down the words etymologically they are:
A-Theism and A-Gnosis meaning without religion and without knowldge respectively. Thus an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a religion and an agnostic is someone who hasn't come to any firm conclusions about the existence of God or any gods.

HurlinThom wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 11:09am:

wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 10:09am: By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim. Depends on one's definition of atheism. As I see things atheism is a belief, without proof, of the non-existence of (any) god. Agnosticism demands proof that a god exists.

Not correct. I for instance could declare you are an a-unicornian; You belief without proof that unicorns do not exist.
The burden of proof lies with the maker of the claim, no matter what you claim,  the existance of unicorns, or omnipotent magical beings that create universes.

NB. If you actually belief in unicorns feel free to replace them with a mythical being of your own choosing.

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 1:27pm:

HurlinThom wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 11:09am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 10:09am: By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim. Depends on one's definition of atheism. As I see things atheism is a belief, without proof, of the non-existence of (any) god. Agnosticism demands proof that a god exists.   Not correct. I for instance could declare you are an a-unicornian; You belief without proof that unicorns do not exist. The burden of proof lies with the maker of the claim, no matter what you claim,  the existance of unicorns, or omnipotent magical beings that create universes. NB. If you actually belief in unicorns feel free to replace them with a mythical being of your own choosing.

We are really splitting hairs at this point...

The irony here is your definition of this "a-unicornian" is someone who believes without proof that unicorns do not exist. Operative word here being belief. So to follow that logic an atheist is someone who believes without proof that any God does not exist. Again, we come down to it being a belief. So Atheism is essentially a belief about God (His non-existence) that can't be proved but must be taken on faith.  Sure sounds like a religion to me.

Look, this is not a shot against atheists. If that is how you believe, that is fine. Freedom to choose is essential to growth. Yet, call a spade a spade. Don't avoid the truth of it being a belief just because it lumps you in with other belief systems.  

"A-Theist"............means no God. So an atheist confidently declares there is no God.

"A-Gnostic"..........means one who doesn't know, at least allows the possibility that God exists.

Morphy wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 5:54pm:

wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 1:27pm: HurlinThom wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 11:09am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 10:09am: By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim. Depends on one's definition of atheism. As I see things atheism is a belief, without proof, of the non-existence of (any) god. Agnosticism demands proof that a god exists.   Not correct. I for instance could declare you are an a-unicornian; You belief without proof that unicorns do not exist. The burden of proof lies with the maker of the claim, no matter what you claim,  the existance of unicorns, or omnipotent magical beings that create universes. NB. If you actually belief in unicorns feel free to replace them with a mythical being of your own choosing. We are really splitting hairs at this point... The irony here is your definition of this "a-unicornian" is someone who believes without proof that unicorns do not exist. Operative word here being belief. So to follow that logic an atheist is someone who believes without proof that any God does not exist. Again, we come down to it being a belief. So Atheism is essentially a belief about God (His non-existence) that can't be proved but must be taken on faith.  Sure sounds like a religion to me. Look, this is not a shot against atheists. If that is how you believe, that is fine. Freedom to choose is essential to growth. Yet, call a spade a spade. Don't avoid the truth of it being a belief just because it lumps you in with other belief systems.

Wow, you really don´t get it do you...?
"Believing the sun will rise in the morning", and "believing in leprichauns" uses the same word, but don´t try to sell me these are the same kind of belief systems!
Never really understood why religious people so desperately seem to need to call atheism a religion, which it obviously is not.
As stated earlier atheism is the denial of the claim "there is a god". Nothing more nothing less.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

HurlinThom wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 11:09am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 10:09am: By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim. Depends on one's definition of atheism. As I see things atheism is a belief, without proof, of the non-existence of (any) god. Agnosticism demands proof that a god exists.  If you break down the words etymologically they are: A-Theism and A-Gnosis meaning without religion and without knowldge respectively. Thus an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a religion and an agnostic is someone who hasn't come to any firm conclusions about the existence of God or any gods.

There's a difference between believing in religion and believing in God. Or Gods. You can believe in a First Cause or a Creator without feeling a need to worship same.

"As stated earlier atheism is the denial of the claim "there is a god". Nothing more nothing less. "

Right and that is clearly understood, now we get to the point.

You deny it, because that is your belief. And that belief takes faith to believe since you have no empirical proof. Anytime you believe something when there is no empirical proof to back it up, that is the essence of faith.  I will not call it a religion anymore if it offends you.

Therefore atheism is a denial of something based on your belief that it is correct to deny it. And your belief is based solely on faith that you are right. Therefore atheism is a faith-based belief system which makes a statement about God.  If I made the mistake of calling it a religion you will have to forgive me as at this point the two seem so close as to be indistinguishable in all the major aspects.  

That is the only point I am making. It is your right to believe that way and I would fight for that right. But trying to replace the word belief with deny is semantics...nothing more. It's like saying the cup is half empty instead of half full and thinking that makes any difference in the overall state of the cup. Or in this case the the idea that it is a faith-based belief system regarding God. Deny, believe, both sides of the same coin... For a purely scientific point of view agnosticism is the only belief system that can actually be proven as it leaves open the possibility of either side being true.

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 10:09am:

By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim.

That's true.  I don't cling dogmatically to my lack of belief in God.  I just don't believe in God.


I also don't believe that there are a thousand invisible pink elephants under my bed.  That doesn't mean that I'm "believing in" something.  It is the absence of a belief in something.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

HurlinThom wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 11:09am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 10:09am: By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim. Depends on one's definition of atheism. As I see things atheism is a belief, without proof, of the non-existence of (any) god. Agnosticism demands proof that a god exists.  If you break down the words etymologically they are: A-Theism and A-Gnosis meaning without religion and without knowldge respectively. Thus an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a religion and an agnostic is someone who hasn't come to any firm conclusions about the existence of God or any gods.

I am an agnostic who definitely thinks it far more likely that God does not exist.

I would not assert that God does not exist, because as has been noted, no one has proof of that.  But please do not take my self-description that I am an "agnostic" to indicate that I think it really could go either way.  I lean heavily toward feeling that there is no God (at least, not anything like what the world's religions cleave to).

So it's true that I haven't "come to any firm conclusions," but I sure as heck am not anything remotely close to believing in God.

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 7:05pm:

Morphy wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 5:54pm: wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 1:27pm: HurlinThom wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 11:09am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 10:09am: By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim. Depends on one's definition of atheism. As I see things atheism is a belief, without proof, of the non-existence of (any) god. Agnosticism demands proof that a god exists.   Not correct. I for instance could declare you are an a-unicornian; You belief without proof that unicorns do not exist. The burden of proof lies with the maker of the claim, no matter what you claim,  the existance of unicorns, or omnipotent magical beings that create universes. NB. If you actually belief in unicorns feel free to replace them with a mythical being of your own choosing. We are really splitting hairs at this point... The irony here is your definition of this "a-unicornian" is someone who believes without proof that unicorns do not exist. Operative word here being belief. So to follow that logic an atheist is someone who believes without proof that any God does not exist. Again, we come down to it being a belief. So Atheism is essentially a belief about God (His non-existence) that can't be proved but must be taken on faith.  Sure sounds like a religion to me. Look, this is not a shot against atheists. If that is how you believe, that is fine. Freedom to choose is essential to growth. Yet, call a spade a spade. Don't avoid the truth of it being a belief just because it lumps you in with other belief systems.   Wow, you really don´t get it do you...? "Believing the sun will rise in the morning", and "believing in leprichauns" uses the same word, but don´t try to sell me these are the same kind of belief systems! Never really understood why religious people so desperately seem to need to call atheism a religion, which it obviously is not. As stated earlier atheism is the denial of the claim "there is a god". Nothing more nothing less.

Right there with ya, KS.  ;)

There are infinite things we could be said to "not believe in," which is, to these folks, the same as "believing that there is not."

For example, if someone asked me if I believe that my father launched a rocket into space this morning, I would say that no, I do not.  Is that the same as "believing he didn't"?  No.  "Believing" something is an active thing.  There are a zillion gazillion things that one could be asked if one "believes."  To use the logic that's being shown to us here, a person could come up to us and ask us if we believe his claim that a thousand angels are dancing on the head of a pin, and if we say "no," then we're accused of "believing that they're not," when in truth, it's one of the infinite things that we hadn't even been considering for belief.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 9:17pm:

There are infinite things we could be said to "not believe in," which is, to these folks, the same as "believing that there is not." For example, if someone asked me if I believe that my father launched a rocket into space this morning, I would say that no, I do not.  Is that the same as "believing he didn't"?  No.  "Believing" something is an active thing.  There are a zillion gazillion things that one could be asked if one "believes."  To use the logic that's being shown to us here, a person could come up to us and ask us if we believe his claim that a thousand angels are dancing on the head of a pin, and if we say "no," then we're accused of "believing that they're not," when in truth, it's one of the infinite things that we hadn't even been considering for belief.

Again, one definition of believe is "to hold an opinion". Do you think that there is no God? Do you think there is a God? If the answer to either of these is yes, then you believe. It is not a religious belief, but it can be precisely defined as a belief. The only way to not have a belief is to not have an opinion.

Then it's academic.

Fine, "I believe that there is no God."

My belief that there isn't one is nowhere near tantamount to others' belief that there is one, because I admit that I don't know, and cannot know, that there isn't one; religious people, however, say that their faith enables them to "know" that there is one.

If I claimed that I "knew" that there is no God, without being able to prove it, religious people's heads would blow up. But they do the exact same thing, just at the opposite extreme.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 9:17pm:

wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 7:05pm: Morphy wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 5:54pm: wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 1:27pm: HurlinThom wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 11:09am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 10:09am: By the way, atheism isn´t a belief at all; it´s just a response to a claim. Depends on one's definition of atheism. As I see things atheism is a belief, without proof, of the non-existence of (any) god. Agnosticism demands proof that a god exists.   Not correct. I for instance could declare you are an a-unicornian; You belief without proof that unicorns do not exist. The burden of proof lies with the maker of the claim, no matter what you claim,  the existance of unicorns, or omnipotent magical beings that create universes. NB. If you actually belief in unicorns feel free to replace them with a mythical being of your own choosing. We are really splitting hairs at this point... The irony here is your definition of this "a-unicornian" is someone who believes without proof that unicorns do not exist. Operative word here being belief. So to follow that logic an atheist is someone who believes without proof that any God does not exist. Again, we come down to it being a belief. So Atheism is essentially a belief about God (His non-existence) that can't be proved but must be taken on faith.  Sure sounds like a religion to me. Look, this is not a shot against atheists. If that is how you believe, that is fine. Freedom to choose is essential to growth. Yet, call a spade a spade. Don't avoid the truth of it being a belief just because it lumps you in with other belief systems.   Wow, you really don´t get it do you...? "Believing the sun will rise in the morning", and "believing in leprichauns" uses the same word, but don´t try to sell me these are the same kind of belief systems! Never really understood why religious people so desperately seem to need to call atheism a religion, which it obviously is not. As stated earlier atheism is the denial of the claim "there is a god". Nothing more nothing less. Right there with ya, KS.  ;) There are infinite things we could be said to "not believe in," which is, to these folks, the same as "believing that there is not." For example, if someone asked me if I believe that my father launched a rocket into space this morning, I would say that no, I do not.  Is that the same as "believing he didn't"?  No.  "Believing" something is an active thing.  There are a zillion gazillion things that one could be asked if one "believes."  To use the logic that's being shown to us here, a person could come up to us and ask us if we believe his claim that a thousand angels are dancing on the head of a pin, and if we say "no," then we're accused of "believing that they're not," when in truth, it's one of the infinite things that we hadn't even been considering for belief.

Here's the problem I see with that example PJ. To call yourself an Atheist you must have already considered whether there is a God(s) or not and decided there is not. This is not some random question someone ambushes you with on the street corner as your example would indicate... This is a definition of your belief given to yourself by yourself.

So if you choose to be an atheist then that is your belief. If you choose to say you don't know one way or the other you're an agnostic.  Why do so many atheist's want to appear as if they have absolutely no belief concerning God, as if they never even considered it, yet they actively choose to call themselves atheist? Wouldn't it be easier to save yourself the trouble and just go with agnostic, since that definition actually fits better if you truly have no beliefs whatsoever?

After many years of referring to myself as an atheist, I came to understand that it is more accurate to say that I am an agnostic (with atheist leanings). I do NOT profess to KNOW that there is no God. I don't have proof that he is not somewhere in the universe (or even perhaps outside of it).

On the other hand, although the religious ALSO LACK PROOF to support their belief, they insist -- INSIST -- that there IS a God. And then they say that no proof is needed; that "faith" makes up for the absence of proof.

On your point about having a belief, I will say that an absence of a belief in God is a "belief" only in the most marginal sense. And one need not find "proof" for what he doesn't believe in. It's the person who states that something is so, or states that something exists, who is obligated to bring the proof. If someone claimed that there is a black hole in orbit around our sun on the opposite side of our orbit, it would not be up to disbelievers to prove that there is no such thing. One cannot prove a negative. The onus will always be on the person who asserts that there is such a thing.

So it is with God. A person would not have a "belief" that there is no God until he is confronted with someone who presents to him the idea that there is one. He considers what he is being asked to believe, says that he sees no proof or evidence, and declines to believe in the hypothesis. It's as simple as that. If he happens to forget that the person postulated this "God" to believe in, he goes right back to thinking nothing of it at all. Hence, "absence of a God" is not actually a "held belief" on his part.

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 11:22pm:

Then it's academic. Fine, "I believe that there is no God." My belief that there isn't one is nowhere near tantamount to others' belief that there is one, because I admit that I don't know, and cannot know, that there isn't one; religious people, however, say that their faith enables them to "know" that there is one. If I claimed that I "knew" that there is no God, without being able to prove it, religious people's heads would blow up. But they do the exact same thing, just at the opposite extreme.

This is one reason I am very careful in distinguishing what I believe and what I know. Although since I believe in the Bible, I do believe it's possible for a man to actually have God reveal Himself to them and if that were to happen you could say you know. But you make a good point PJ.

Also wanted to make it clear that I strongly believe in an individuals right to believe as he/she will. I consider it essential to growth and to God's plan. It is difficult sometimes reading someone's post and not hearing the tone of voice they are saying it in. Sometimes it can come off as quite harsh. I have nothing but respect for you guys even if our opinions differ as widely as can be. Peace.

I have a lot of respect and amity for you guys, too.
I do not exclude people from friendship on the basis that our religious beliefs don't square.

I find it somewhat amusing that your post seems to say, "It's all right if some folks don't believe in God; God's figured that into his plan."  ;D

I know that you don't mean insult by it, but it really is possible to see that as being quasi-insulting. It's rather like if atheists said, "It's all right if people believe in God; our psychiatrists understand where they get that delusion from." ;D

"This is one reason I am very careful in distinguishing what I believe and what I know. Although since I believe in the Bible, I do believe it's possible for a man to actually have God reveal Himself to them and if that were to happen you could say you know. But you make a good point PJ."

I suppose that, given that God exists, he could make himself known to individuals. The problem is that even if such a thing factually happened to a person, if he does not possess the ability to prove that it did, we are back at square one: the person believes in -- KNOWS -- the existence of God, but it is no more proved to others than it was before. Now, instead of being asked to believe in the unprovable existence of God, they are asked to believe in the unprovable revelation of God to the believer (which, like the existence of God, is also nondisprovable).

peacefuljeffrey wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 12:15am:

I have a lot of respect and amity for you guys, too. I do not exclude people from friendship on the basis that our religious beliefs don't square. I find it somewhat amusing that your post seems to say, "It's all right if some folks don't believe in God; God's figured that into his plan."  ;D I know that you don't mean insult by it, but it really is possible to see that as being quasi-insulting. It's rather like if atheists said, "It's all right if people believe in God; our psychiatrists understand where they get that delusion from." ;D

I understand how it might be taken that way from your analogy. I don't consider anyone lesser for not believing in God, just as I've known atheists that don't consider me lesser then themselves for my belief in Him. This is one of those subjects that almost any statement can be seen in a bad light. Unfortunately the internet is not great for conveying one's true meaning. I've heard it said that only a very small percentage of communication is actually from what you say. The rest comes from body language and tone etc...

So for what it's worth, it was not meant as condescending.  :-? ;D :P

Alright, guess I'm done with this thread for now. It's draining... I much rather discuss the best way to survive a zombie invasion...