PDA

View Full Version : Science & Christianity- debate over everything


Arcesious
12-02-2007, 03:10 PM
Okay first off let me say that I’d like this thread to be a civilized discussion without flaming or people getting mad. Let’s not do the conventional atheist vs. theist routine. Let’s put EVERYTHING out on the table and begin with the simple process of elimination. I’m not your conventional average Christian.

My ideas on this are different than I bet you’d expect in some aspects.
For example: I agree that earth is very old and that evolution is partially true. I don’t believe humans evolved from apes though. So… let’s start with the beginning.

Universal creation. Factors are too complex and perfect for this to be a random occurrence. The big bang may actually in a sense be true. The bible never said in exactly what form God created the heavens (universe) and the earth. God could have made a big explosion and controlled it to create the desired conditions. Or in some other way. The big bang couldn’t have been formed without something to create it, matter and energy cannot come out of nothing ness, except from God. God is the only answer to the universe’s creation. Every atheist says they’ll eventually find an explanation that disproves God, but have they yet? No. Until they actually do, I guess God is the only possible explanation, and I bet they’ll never find it as long as they don’t stop to consider that a creator might be the only answer to their unresolved equations. In genesis, the world day is a mistranslation!

The word in Greek and Hebrew that was translated to day also can translate to age or period, but day is the dominantly most used form of the translation. Science proves that Earth and the universe must be old. Therefore human error has translated the bible to say that the universe and earth were created in 7 days, where it should instead say 7 ages or 7 periods of time. Ages and periods of time are undefined, but we know that there were seven of them. Seven phases. The bible says that every creature will reproduce after it’s own kind, not another. How could scientists ever say it’s even possible that there can be cross-species breeding? How can a bird breed with a reptile? It doesn’t make sense. Sure there’s natural selection, the bible says that God gave all creatures, including humans, the ability to adapt.

Evolution in the bible is called adaptation, so the bible actually partially agrees with evolution in the natural selection part of it. How could tens of thousands of very complex species have come forth without a creator? Everyone knows it’s impossible for life to come out of a pool of chemicals. The factors are impossible. But when you think about it, god created man from dust. What if what I’ve just said was false was true, and God was the factor that caused the chemicals in the dust and goo to become life? Who knows? It might be possible that that is the case. People who wrote the bible don’t have the understanding of deciphering it we have today. They didn’t understand science as we did, but we have explanations for what they didn’t understand now. Explanations that may only further prove it. As you’re reading this, I want you to know that I’ve given you some ground in this. I’ve somewhat agreed with evolution and abiogenesis in this. Now, Christianity wasn’t an official religion until after Jesus Christ died on the cross, I know.

But there were prophets such as Moses, who wrote part of the bible before that time, and Christianity wasn’t actually named, but it was a religion. Judaism may have come first, but Christianity is a purified version. Okay this part is rather complex, bear with me; I’ll explain everything as I go.

The Story of Job actually comes before Exodus, which is where the story of the great flood came. In Job it mentions creatures such as the Leviathan, which was a name the people back then had for a dinosaur. The bible pretty much discretely says that humans lived during the time of dinosaurs. And the great flood in exodus is what caused the dinosaurs to die out. Imagine this. In the bible it says god separated the two waters, the sky and the oceans in genesis. As this time, earth was tropical everywhere. Even at the poles.

Now, either the air pressure in earth’s atmosphere or some other gas heavier than water was in the atmosphere. And the atmosphere actually was filled with tons and tons of water, enough to flood the entire earth. Somehow, the pressure of the atmosphere at that time or some other force, likely a gas that held the water up in the atmosphere somehow did that. Now, a force from God or some other outside force causes the water in the atmosphere to collapse, and flood the entire earth, covering every continent, and covering the highest point on earth by at last 20 feet. Now, Moses and his family survive this flood on the ark, along with tons of different animals, which is in the frozen mountains of Turkey. Obviously the water pressure must be so great that it kills even the aquatic dinosaurs. The bible says they were on the ark 40 days and 40 nights.

I guess God likes the number 40. Now, I bet that earth’s rotation around the sun entered the winter season, and this ended up being the first winter, and from the forces of both a rapidly changing climate on earth and the cold covering the earth, an Ice Age likely occurred. Over time the ice slowly melted away to the poles and the Ice age probably ended. Moses, his family, and all the animals and human descendants from Moses’ family likely lived though the ice age, but didn’t write in the bible about it. Now it makes sense why the ark is in the FROZEN Mountains of turkey huh? Plant life probably came back when the earth froze, life that could withstand the ice age conditions, which explains the dove bringing an olive branch back to Moses. I’m not sure if I’m write about this, but aren’t olive trees able to survive cold weather conditions?

Morals. Reason. Truth. Common Sense. Angles and Demons. Sin. These are the more delicate areas that seem to others like superstitious.
God created the angels and heaven before he created the universe itself. Heaven is likely another dimension. (Pure speculation of course, I have no proof whatsoever of that ‘fact’, so I won’t try to go prove it)

He created the angels with free will. Lucifer, Satan; wanted to be like god, and god cast him down. 1/3rd of the angels followed Satan. Satan was an archangel, like Gabriel. He is not a red guy with horns and a pitchfork. In fact, he looks like a beautiful and majestic angel. He is the master of deception, of lies, of twisting words, of evil itself. The demons are actually also angels. Butt hey are evil and under his command. He and his demons are the little suggestive voice in the back of your head that likely corrupt your conscience to suggest to you to do bad things. But it is your choice to do so. Now you might think it’s your own mind and your thoughts that suggest you do something bad, but Satan is the master of deception, he does this so perfectly that you don’t even realize it’s him suggesting that you sin. Is it not so hard to for once think it’s possible that other higher beings created by God exist among us? Beings who know your every wish, desire, what makes you mad, what can drive you to insanity, or what can give you joy and happiness? (Rhetorical)

Now God doesn’t make mistakes, he's God. This was all part of his plan. He is God. God must have a purpose. He can’t just be God and do nothing.

Everything must have a purpose and reason for existing. This is all a grand plan of his. He creates angles that can be corrupted by their own free will, and evil is born for a purpose. He then creates the universe and us. We are like a Jury. God is the Judge. Out of his perfection he wanted other beings to be able to experience what it is like to be like him. Therefore he created us.

The angels were not meant for this purpose. He sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross to save us from our sins. All except for one sin- not believing in him. This may seem like a bunch of superstition, but in fact it is a grand plan.

How else could it possibly be more perfect for us to debate like a jury on this earth. The conditions are perfect. Good and evil combat on this earth with such perfection. God didn’t make us perfect for obvious reasons. We are like a jury hat will experience sin and good, and in the end such experience will lead those of us who believe in God and Jesus to experience perfection for eternity. Heaven and hell… Don’t believe and you go to hell, believe and you go to heaven. Typical of any religion huh? No. It’s not that simple. I don’t believe in God and Jesus because I want to go to heaven instead of being condemned to hell, I believe because I know it’s true. I believe because I repect God.

God is God. He is above everyone and everything. He deserves respect. Who are we to challenge the truth and power of a being with infinite power and understanding that makes our minds seem like the minds of fools? We can’t possibly compete with God. He knows what’s good for us and many of us are so deceived by Satan that we don’t know what’s good for us. We are of a curious nature, seeking out the unknown and debating what is true. What else could be more perfect to debate Good and evil and all else? Wouldn’t you be happy serving God in heaven, having ultimate understanding just like him and living eternally in perfect content? It’s not something we can comprehend. We debate it because it requires some faith. God made the situation like this for a reason. He loves us. But not with conventional love.

It’s called Agape Love (agape is a Greek word) Agape means unconditional love. Despite our sin and corruption he understands and graces us out, for it was his plan all along for us to experience sin. There is something called the great white throne judgment. This will occur after the tribulation, which is after the rapture. When all believers on this earth disappear into thin air, hopefully some of you who will not be persuaded by what I’ve said will finally realize I was right if you don’t agree with me now.

The white throne judgment is where God will judge everyone; those who believed in him will go to heaven and those who didn’t will go to hell. As simple as that. If you don’t like it I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is. This will likely be debated over and over again, until the rapture and all believers on earth on gone and unable to debate again. There will be false prophets after we disappear. There will be an antichrist. A person who everyone will love and want as a leader. He will unite the world and create one world belief. The tribulation will last 7 years.

Many great natural disasters will occur, and the first 3 ½ years will be peaceful. The last 3 ½ years full of war and destruction. When this time occurs, and I’m proven correct, despite all you will have debated against me to disprove me, I will be proven right and the final piece will finally click into place. This antichrist will deceive many. I am warning you of this. It is your choice whether to believe me or not. This may be debated as anyone sees fit, but my point still stands.

Other religions. We can debate that too. I say Christianity is right and every other religion is false. As simple as that, but I can’t prove it totally. That’s why the bible says you have to have faith. Pretty bold words I guess but that’s why we’re going to debate this aren’t we? I won’t force this on you. I infact just want to debate this because I need a bit of a challenge for once.

Who knows? I might lose this debate, but as I aid, if the tribulation and rapture do happen, no matter how this debate turns out my point will have been correct. We’ll just have to see what happens. Also calling you atheists… it’s such a strong term. But I guess it’s the only term I can refer to you as. I just want you to know I hold nothing against you and I hope we can still be friends and our opinions of each other don’t change for the worse.

I don’t want this DISCUSSION to become a flame war, so seriously let’s be civilized. I’ll be civilized, unlike how I was in the past a few months ago. Anything I forgot to mention will probably come up in this debate anyways, and I should be ready for it this time. I hope there are some Christians out there to help me out in this debate, because I’m not a one-man army. In fact, if I don’t prove anything, I won’t be cynical when this debate ends and saying something like “we’ll just have to see who has the last laugh”. So don’t’ worry about that. Besides, everyone is here because debating’s fun, right?
The word count of this entire post is over 2300… lolz

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 04:42 PM
thanks for formating. After putting the effort into reading it all, I refuse to discuss this with you. good day.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 04:48 PM
um... why not?

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 04:53 PM
um... why not?

Because:
A: I don't have the knoweledge needed to address alot of this.
B: the latter half of it is "try to disprove me that the Second Coming is going to happen!" And that's something I have no desire to due.
C: there are many, many, logical fallacies in here that simply make my head hurt reading.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 04:58 PM
eh, okay. fine by me i guess. i've got a headache form debating in other threads anyways, so i might as well take a break.

mur'phon
12-02-2007, 05:02 PM
You may want to splitt that text wall into paragraphs, makes it easier to read.

Universal creation. Factors are too complex and perfect for this to be a random occurrence.

Even if the odds of the universe forming the way it has is 10^gogol, it is still possible.

The big bang may actually in a sense be true. The bible never said in exactly what form God created the heavens (universe) and the earth. God could have made a big explosion and controlled it to create the desired conditions. Or in some other way. The big bang couldn’t have been formed without something to create it, matter and energy cannot come out of nothing ness, except from God.

So, let me see if I understand you corectly. Matter and energy can't come out of nothing, but God created matter and energy out of nothing? What created God then? Did God came out of nothing to create the big bang out of nothing? Sorry, but this isn't making any sence to me

God is the only answer to the universe’s creation.

I have yet to see you prove it, though I hope you can.

Every atheist says they’ll eventually find an explanation that disproves God, but have they yet? No. Until they actually do, I guess God is the only possible explanation, and I bet they’ll never find it as long as they don’t stop to consider that a creator might be the only answer to their unresolved equations.

Scientists can only make hypothesises based on testable theories/evidence. Until someone can prove the existence of a god/gods, they won't be a part of a hypothesis conserning the creation of the universe. Atheist tend to need scientific evidence in order to believe something, god/gods will be considered an answer as soon as someone makes a testable hypthesis of the excistence of a god/gods, and after enough time it isn't disproved.

In genesis, the world day is a mistranslation! The word in Greek and Hebrew that was translated to day also can translate to age or period, but day is the dominantly most used form of the translation. Science proves that Earth and the universe must be old. Therefore human error has translated the bible to say that the universe and earth were created in 7 days, where it should instead say 7 ages or 7 periods of time.

Or maybe it was suposed to say he/she/it created it in seven days. Don't get me wrong, you may very vell be right, but you don't know it was mistranslated.

The bible says that every creature will reproduce after it’s own kind, not another. How could scientists ever say it’s even possible that there can be cross-species breeding? How can a bird breed with a reptile?

Luckily, evolution dosen't require different species to mate, though maybe you weren't getting at evolution.

How could tens of thousands of very complex species have come forth without a creator? Everyone knows it’s impossible for life to come out of a pool of chemicals. The factors are impossible.

Why is it impossible? It hasn't been done yet, but no one knows if it's possible or not. As for the amount of species, you only need one to come from chemicals, the rest can evolve from it (if you believe in evolution).

But when you think about it, god created man from dust. What if what I’ve just said was false was true, and God was the factor that caused the chemicals in the dust and goo to become life? Who knows? It might be possible that that is the case.

Wait, first you said life from chems are impossible, now you say it is possible if God helped? I'm sorry, but I need to know a) what God did that the chems weren't capable without him/her/it, b) evidence for he/she/it actually doing it, and c) proof of it being the christian god and not another.

The bible pretty much discretely says that humans lived during the time of dinosaurs.

I would like to see where it says that. And would you mind telling me why c-14 estimates put the dinosaurs on earth milions of years before humans?

And the great flood in exodus is what caused the dinosaurs to die out. Imagine this. In the bible it says god separated the two waters, the sky and the oceans in genesis. As this time, earth was tropical everywhere. Even at the poles. Now, either the air pressure in earth’s atmosphere or some other gas heavier than water was in the atmosphere. And the atmosphere actually was filled with tons and tons of water, enough to flood the entire earth. Somehow, the pressure of the atmosphere at that time or some other force, likely a gas that held the water up in the atmosphere somehow did that. Now, a force from God or some other outside force causes the water in the atmosphere to collapse, and flood the entire earth, covering every continent, and covering the highest point on earth by at last 20 feet. Now, Moses and his family survive this flood on the ark, along with tons of different animals, which is in the frozen mountains of Turkey. Obviously the water pressure must be so great that it kills even the aquatic dinosaurs. The bible says they were on the ark 40 days and 40 nights. I guess God likes the number 40. Now, I bet that earth’s rotation around the sun entered the winter season, and this ended up being the first winter, and from the forces of both a rapidly changing climate on earth and the cold covering the earth, an Ice Age likely occurred. Over time the ice slowly melted away to the poles and the Ice age probably ended. Moses, his family, and all the animals and human descendants from Moses’ family likely lived though the ice age, but didn’t write in the bible about it. Now it makes sense why the ark is in the FROZEN Mountains of turkey huh? Plant life probably came back when the earth froze, life that could withstand the ice age conditions, which explains the dove bringing an olive branch back to Moses. I’m not sure if I’m write about this, but aren’t olive trees able to survive cold weather conditions?

I hope you have some evidence of this, because no geological evidence I have seen so far sugest anything of what you describe. And if you wondered: no, olive trees dosen't like cold weather that much.

Is it not so hard to for once think it’s possible that other higher beings created by God exist among us?

It's hard for me to believe anything without evidence.

Now God doesn’t make mistakes. This was all part of his plan. He is God. God must have a purpose. He can’t just be God and do nothing. Everything must have a purpose and reason for existing. This is all a grand plan of his. He creates angles that can be corrupted by their own free will, and evil is born for a purpose. He then creates the universe and us. We are like a Jury. God is the Judge. Out of his perfection he wanted other beings to be able to experience what it is like to be like him. Therefore he created us. The angles were not meant for this purpose. He sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross to save us from our sins.
Again, I need evidence to believe anything.

All except for one sin- not believing in him.

So, Gandhi goes to hell for not believing in him, while Richard Lionheart gets a ticket to heaven? Seems quite unfair to me

This may seem like a bunch of superstition, but in fact it is a grand plan. How else could it possibly be more perfect for us to debate like a jury on this earth. The conditions are perfect. Good and evil combat on this earth with such perfection.

So, can you point out the black and white warriors for me? I seem to only be able to see shades of grey.

I believe because I know it’s true

How do you know?

God is God. He is above everyone and everything. He deserves respect. Who are we to challenge the truth and power of a being with infinite power and understanding that makes our minds seem like the minds of fools? We can’t possibly compete with God. He knows what’s good for us and many of us are so deceived by Satan that we don’t know what’s good for us. We are of a curious nature, seeking out the unknown and debating what is true. What else could be more perfect to debate Good and evil and all else? Wouldn’t you be happy serving God in heaven, having ultimate understanding just like him and living eternally in perfect content? It’s not something we can comprehend. We debate it because it requires some faith. God made the situation like this for a reason. He loves us. But not with conventional love. It’s called Agape Love (agape is a Greek word) Agape means unconditional love. Despite our sin and corruption he understands and graces us out, for it was his plan all along for us to experience sin. There is something called the great white throne judgment. This will occur after the tribulation, which is after the rapture.

I'm probably getting tiresome, but evidence please

When all believers on this earth disappear into thin air, hopefully some of you who will not be persuaded by what I’ve said will finally realize I was right

Sure, if it happens I'll curse myself for not being convinced without any evidence shown, not terribly afraid of it happening though :)

When this time occurs, and I’m proven correct

Thats a rather bad attitude man, correct me if I'm wrong but you are essentially sayng " I am right no matter what, I don't care if I don't have evidence, I'm still right"

Other religions. We can debate that too. I say Christianity is right and every other religion is false. As simple as that, but I can’t prove it. That’s why the bible says you have to have faith. Pretty bold words I guess but that’s why we’re going to debate this aren’t we? I won’t force this on you. I infact just want to debate this because I need a bit of a challenge for once. Who knows? I might lose this debate, but as I aid, if the tribulation and rapture do happen, no matter how this debate turns out my point will have been correct. We’ll just have to see what happens.

Changing from *when* to *if* is an improvement, though I hardly see the point in debating with someone who have no evidence suporting him, yet seem to be unable to considder that he/she may be wrong.

Also calling you atheists… it’s such a strong term. But I guess it’s the only term I can refer to you as. I just want you to know I hold nothing against you and I hope we can still be friends and our opinions of each other don’t change.

I do not hold anything against religious people in general, and my oppinion of them hasn't changed. My oppinion of you is another matter, it hasn't improved to put it mildly.

I don’t want this DISCUSSION to become a flame war, so seriously let’s be civilized. I’ll be civilized, unlike how I was in the past a few months ago.

Untill you seem to be able to think critically and question your own belief (you don't have to change it), I don't see the point in discussing anything. On a side note, I'll be surprised if this dosen't get locked/ignored before long.

I hope there are some Christians out there to help me out in this debate

No worries, there are enough christians here, wether they will support you is another matter.

Besides, everyone is here because debating’s fun, right?

And to have ones oppinions/beliefs questioned and pherhaps changed, to learn something new, and to talk to people from al over the world. You May want to keep that in mind :)

Ray Jones
12-02-2007, 05:26 PM
I learned the other day that circa 75000 years ago some tiki tiki volcano erupted and darkened earth's sky for about 6 years, thus causing a near global catastrophe, which was also affecting the African continent with droughts and stuff.
At that time most humans, if not all, were living on the African land. It is assumed (and genetic tests indicate that) that most of them died as a indirect result of the eruption, and that all humans of today are ancestors of not more than 1000 humans who somehow survived that scenario.
It is also given that our genetic code has not changed over the past 35000 years.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 05:42 PM
Quote: So, let me see if I understand you corectly. Matter and energy can't come out of nothing, but God created matter and energy out of nothing? What created God then? Did God came out of nothing to create the big bang out of nothing? Sorry, but this isn't making any sence to me

Quote:
Scientists can only make hypothesises based on testable theories/evidence. Until someone can prove the existence of a god/gods, they won't be a part of a hypothesis conserning the creation of the universe. Atheist tend to need scientific evidence in order to believe something, god/gods will be considered an answer as soon as someone makes a testable hypthesis of the excistence of a god/gods, and after enough time it isn't disproved.

Answer: Still, every bit of science you ever have tested without includign the possiblity of God has always turned otu the same. it doesn't work. the only real explanation anyone can truly come to at this moment is God is the answer, whther they liek it or not.

Quote: Or maybe it was suposed to say he/she/it created it in seven days. Don't get me wrong, you may very vell be right, but you don't know it was mistranslated.

Answer: Yeah i know i can't be sure of that but it makes more sense doesn't it?

Quote: Wait, first you said life from chems are impossible, now you say it is possible if God helped? I'm sorry, but I need to know a) what God did that the chems weren't capable without him/her/it, b) evidence for he/she/it actually doing it, and c) proof of it being the christian god and not another.

Answer: He used his great power. the chemicals can't just bcoem life. everyoen shoudl know to make DNA you need RNA and to make RNA you need DNA and to amke Amino Acids wou need DNA and to make protein you need Amino Acids... and so on and so forth. pretty much only God could've done that. and cells are so complex and work so well. how could it not be God's work? answer to C: i dunno. i guess i have to have faith don't I? Every religion requires soem faith, and to not believe soemthing we can't fully understand is arrogance in a sense i think. (not saying ur arrogant, cause ur not.)

Quote: I would like to see where it says that. And would you mind telling me why c-14 estimates put the dinosaurs on earth milions of years before humans?

Answer: In the bible god created the animals before humans. who says dinosaurs couldn't have existed for millions years before humans and eventually humans coexisted with them? it's possible and my non-christian histroy books seem to imply that it might be true.

Big Quote: Quote:
Is it not so hard to for once think it’s possible that other higher beings created by God exist among us?



It's hard for me to believe anything without evidence.


Quote:
Now God doesn’t make mistakes. This was all part of his plan. He is God. God must have a purpose. He can’t just be God and do nothing. Everything must have a purpose and reason for existing. This is all a grand plan of his. He creates angles that can be corrupted by their own free will, and evil is born for a purpose. He then creates the universe and us. We are like a Jury. God is the Judge. Out of his perfection he wanted other beings to be able to experience what it is like to be like him. Therefore he created us. The angles were not meant for this purpose. He sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross to save us from our sins.


Again, I need evidence to believe anything.


Quote:
All except for one sin- not believing in him.



So, Gandhi goes to hell for not believing in him, while Richard Lionheart gets a ticket to heaven? Seems quite unfair to me


Quote:
This may seem like a bunch of superstition, but in fact it is a grand plan. How else could it possibly be more perfect for us to debate like a jury on this earth. The conditions are perfect. Good and evil combat on this earth with such perfection.



So, can you point out the black and white warriors for me? I seem to only be able to see shades of grey.


Quote:
I believe because I know it’s true



How do you know?


Quote:
God is God. He is above everyone and everything. He deserves respect. Who are we to challenge the truth and power of a being with infinite power and understanding that makes our minds seem like the minds of fools? We can’t possibly compete with God. He knows what’s good for us and many of us are so deceived by Satan that we don’t know what’s good for us. We are of a curious nature, seeking out the unknown and debating what is true. What else could be more perfect to debate Good and evil and all else? Wouldn’t you be happy serving God in heaven, having ultimate understanding just like him and living eternally in perfect content? It’s not something we can comprehend. We debate it because it requires some faith. God made the situation like this for a reason. He loves us. But not with conventional love. It’s called Agape Love (agape is a Greek word) Agape means unconditional love. Despite our sin and corruption he understands and graces us out, for it was his plan all along for us to experience sin. There is something called the great white throne judgment. This will occur after the tribulation, which is after the rapture.



I'm probably getting tiresome, but evidence please


Quote:
When all believers on this earth disappear into thin air, hopefully some of you who will not be persuaded by what I’ve said will finally realize I was right



Sure, if it happens I'll curse myself for not being convinced without any evidence shown, not terribly afraid of it happening though


Quote:
When this time occurs, and I’m proven correct



Thats a rather bad attitude man, correct me if I'm wrong but you are essentially sayng " I am right no matter what, I don't care if I don't have evidence, I'm still right"


Quote:
Other religions. We can debate that too. I say Christianity is right and every other religion is false. As simple as that, but I can’t prove it. That’s why the bible says you have to have faith. Pretty bold words I guess but that’s why we’re going to debate this aren’t we? I won’t force this on you. I infact just want to debate this because I need a bit of a challenge for once. Who knows? I might lose this debate, but as I aid, if the tribulation and rapture do happen, no matter how this debate turns out my point will have been correct. We’ll just have to see what happens.



Changing from *when* to *if* is an improvement, though I hardly see the point in debating with someone who have no evidence suporting him, yet seem to be unable to considder that he/she may be wrong.


Quote:
Also calling you atheists… it’s such a strong term. But I guess it’s the only term I can refer to you as. I just want you to know I hold nothing against you and I hope we can still be friends and our opinions of each other don’t change.



I do not hold anything against religious people in general, and my oppinion of them hasn't changed. My oppinion of you is another matter, it hasn't improved to put it mildly.


Quote:
I don’t want this DISCUSSION to become a flame war, so seriously let’s be civilized. I’ll be civilized, unlike how I was in the past a few months ago.



Untill you seem to be able to think critically and question your own belief (you don't have to change it), I don't see the point in discussing anything. On a side note, I'll be surprised if this dosen't get locked/ignored before long


Answer: A: because all the evidence i've seen seems to prove it to me
B: Yep. God doesn't care about Human good, just as long as The person believes in him. unconditional love.
C: Faith. i admit i can't prove everything.
D: same as A
E: can't you see it? the world events and everything are fittign together perfectly just like a puzzle with only a few pieces left. there are signs everywhere that it's goign to happen. sure not hard evidence but again i say all religion requires some faith. but then again maybe i could use the null hypothesis concept to my advnatage here...
F: I guess you're right. i can't really prove it. sorry that I kinda came up here saying "I am right no matter what, I don't care if I don't have evidence, I'm still right"
G: You're right about that. still... Christinity exists and if it's true which i myself beleive and 'know' it is thne it's better safe than sorry. but i don't mean to impose that on you in that sense. that what sort of a rhetorical opinion statement or something
H: I hope your opinion of me improves a little from this somehow. sure, after this debate is over i bet you won't consider me to a very logical person but i guess that can't really be avoided. all i'd liek is if we let bygones be bygones from the past, becasue i've changed from the person i was a few months ago.
I: Yeah... this has been debated so much is a stalemate for both sides becasue neither side lets up or gives up. then again this time i'm willign to admit defeat. i doubt this willb e locked but this will probably go dead after a while. i see your point

Answer to Ray Jones:
Ya know i bet some people lived in europe at that time already. there is a natural landbridge between those africa and europe. maybe that volcano is what created the sahara desert. i bet alot of people survived in egypt and southern europe. maybe that's what caused the famine mentioned in the bible during Joseph's time as pharoah of egypt... it was mentioned that it was a seven year famine. 6/7 years is very close and maybe that 6 years of dakr sky you mentioned was almost seven years

Ray Jones
12-02-2007, 06:07 PM
Arcesious, put tags around the text you like to quote. ;)

Ya know i bet some people lived in europe at that time already. there is a natural landbridge between those africa and europe.I know. These humans could have been the Neanderthals, I think.

mur'phon
12-02-2007, 06:24 PM
Answer: Still, every bit of science you ever have tested without includign the possiblity of God has always turned otu the same. it doesn't work. the only real explanation anyone can truly come to at this moment is God is the answer, whther they liek it or not.

How is a scientist suposed to include the possibility of a god/gods in their tests?

Answer: He used his great power. the chemicals can't just bcoem life

No one knows that, though if you provide evidence, I'll be with you.

how could it not be God's work?

Because it could maybe have happened without he/she/it/they, I haven't seen anything completely denying the possibility of abigensis. Because simple lifelifeforms could have arived on a meteor. And of course because it could be Vishnu, Allah, Yme or any other god/gods who did it.

dunno. i guess i have to have faith don't I?

No you don't have to have faith, wether you choose to have it is your choice:)

Every religion requires soem faith, and to not believe soemthing we can't fully understand is arrogance in a sense i think

I think otherwise:) My stance is more like: to acept something without proof, is to risk deluding your self. Of course I might be wrong.

eventually humans coexisted with them

Then why have we yet to find any dinosaurs who lived even close to when humans came round?


can't you see it? the world events and everything are fittign together perfectly just like a puzzle with only a few pieces left. there are signs everywhere that it's goign to happen.

Humans are trying to see paterns everywhere, try to look at the skies, and you'll see a lot of familiar shapes, now, try to ask others what they think they look like.

but then again maybe i could use the null hypothesis concept to my advnatage here...

Using a hypothesis that you have called something like "unscientific rubish" to your advantage may not be a good idea :)

it is thne it's better safe than sorry

Maybe christians are right, maybe moslems are right, maybe budhists are right, maybe god/the gods love critical people and saves atheists, some may end up safe, a lot may end up sorry :)

I hope your opinion of me improves a little from this somehow

A person who apologies when he think he is wrong, is a person I respect a lot. I was a bit harsh some places, and I apologise for that, but alls well that ends well right?

Rev7
12-02-2007, 06:25 PM
In the bible god created the animals before humans
I think that it is the other way around. God created Adam first, then created animals because Adam was...'lonely'... Adam named the animals, animals didn't do the job so God created Eve. :)

I have yet to see you prove it, though I hope you can.
Do you have any proof that God didn't create the universe? If so, who created the universe. If you support the 'big-bang' theory, how was all of this matter created? Ect., ect. Please provide us with some proof too. :)

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 06:30 PM
Wrong, Rev. God created Humanity last. Geez. It's the very start of the Bible, would it be THAT hard to look it up?

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 06:44 PM
A great flood could significantly destroy evidence of dinosaurs existing when humans did.

one question i have:
waht about crocdiels and alligators?

Christian sceicntists have included God in their tests. how? The factor, God is likely refered to as an imaginary number- A-Z most commonly X. (from calculus) in their calculations

mur'phon
12-02-2007, 06:46 PM
Do you have any proof that God didn't create the universe?

No, and I have no proof the universe wasn't created by invisible unicorns either.

If so, who created the universe

I don't know, dosen't neccesarly need to be anyone.

how was all of this matter created?

No idea

Please provide us with some proof too.

I can't, never claimed I could either

Rev7
12-02-2007, 06:47 PM
Wrong, Rev. God created Humanity last. Geez. It's the very start of the Bible, would it be THAT hard to look it up?
Hey, I made a mistake. I am sorry. I got a tad bit confused, and I should have gone straight to the Bible at first. So once again, please forgive me.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 06:52 PM
It seems the universe cannot exist without an intelligent creating factor. A.K.A God.

It seems my most basic point is impregnable... The Universe cannot and will not exist without God. even though we don't know how God can exist, there is no other explanation besidees that God must exist. God has to exist. If you don't liek it sorry, but every bit of scientific evidence there is and ever will be has an empty hole that only the factor named God can fill.

mur'phon
12-02-2007, 06:55 PM
A great flood could significantly destroy evidence of dinosaurs existing when humans did

I would first like to see evidence of this flood, then I would ask why a flood, which usually is not bad for preserving fossiles, should wipe out all traces.

one question i have:
waht about crocdiels and alligators?

What about them?

Christian sceicntists have included God in their tests. how? The factor, God is likely refered to as an imaginary number- A-Z most commonly X. (from calculus) in their calculations

I'm still not getting how they do it, if you show me an experiment where they used a god/gods, it would probably be easier

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 06:57 PM
Evidence of the flood- look at all the ice. that's where it went.
The crocodiles and alligators: i just am wondering if moses took them on the ark or if they somehow survived the great flood
Including God as a factor, he is an imaginary number a factor that cannot fully be calculated. like Pi.

Rev7
12-02-2007, 07:12 PM
i just am wondering if moses took thme on the akr or if theysomhow survived the great flood.
The great flood, that was stated in the bible, was a purge. Everything that was not on the Ark died. So that generally leaves you with Moses taking the aligators and the crocidlies with him on the Ark.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 07:20 PM
One last speculation: how did the plants survive?

Jae Onasi
12-02-2007, 07:21 PM
Wrong, Rev. God created Humanity last. Geez. It's the very start of the Bible, would it be THAT hard to look it up?

Quit flame-baiting, Corinthian.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 07:24 PM
One last speculation: how did the plants survive?

there are many kinds of plants that require certain circumstances for their seeds to sprout, some need the shells of the seeds worn down, some need them to be digested, some need temperature, rainfall, or season.

A seed could, in theory, remain frozen for a long time, unfreeze and then sprout. How long? Dunno, some seeds are said to last for decades.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 07:34 PM
Makes sense. I bet alot of seeds would float druring a flood.

Wow.... everything we've debated here... i've learned some new things and histroy is finally becoming clear... Now more thna ever Christinity is makign even more sense than before to me thnaks to these debates.

Rev7
12-02-2007, 08:15 PM
Yah, I have already learned a lot more about Christianity during this 'debate' , and a lot about some of LF users.

Well, plants can be overwatered and die. Regardless, we don't know EXACTLY how all of this went down. That is something that I think we will know once we die.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 08:18 PM
Yah, I have already learned a lot more about Christianity during this 'debate' , and a lot about some of LF users.

Well, plants can be overwatered and die. Regardless, we don't know EXACTLY how all of this went down. That is something that I think we will know once we die.

Plants yes, seeds are not the same as plants. Produced from plants? yes. But seeds don't simply grow when water is applied. Oh, and when you die, do let me know, I'm just as curious to put an end to all this as anyone.

of course, if I'm right, when you die that's the end of it, and then we'll never know. oh well.

Rev7
12-02-2007, 08:33 PM
You do the same WR. :p

ET Warrior
12-02-2007, 11:25 PM
If you support the 'big-bang' theory, how was all of this matter created? Ect., ect. Please provide us with some proof too. :)
The conservation of Mass-Energy would indicate that all of this matter-energy has always and will always exist in one form or another. There is no need to suppose that it had to have some sort of beginning. This is difficult to wrap ones head around because we live our lives in a world where everything seems to have a beginning and end, but if we accept that a god created the universe then we have to accept that the laws of physics and the rules of the universe are not constants, and can be broken.

every bit of scientific evidence there is and ever will be has an empty hole that only the factor named God can fill.A fairly typical 'God of the gaps' mentality, if we cannot currently explain it sufficiently then we should simply throw up our arms and say "God did it!".

We used to not know how the Sun managed to rise and set everyday, so we said it must have been God's work, and there was no way we'd ever come up with a different explanation. Of course, we now have an explanation. We don't need to invoke God at all to know why the sun rises and sets. There is no reason to suppose that we will never be able to answer the questions that we don't yet fully understand.

tk102
12-02-2007, 11:31 PM
Sorry for the detour...
I think that it is the other way around. God created Adam first, then created animals because Adam was...'lonely'... Adam named the animals, animals didn't do the job so God created Eve. Wrong, Rev. God created Humanity last. Geez. It's the very start of the Bible, would it be THAT hard to look it up?

Actually Rev7 nailed it if you look at the second account of creation in Genesis.

Genesis 2:6 -- Adam was created first, flora appeared in 2:8, fauna in 2:19 and since there was no suitable companion among them, Eve was created in 2:22.

Jae Onasi
12-03-2007, 01:22 AM
The conservation of Mass-Energy would indicate that all of this matter-energy has always and will always exist in one form or another. There is no need to suppose that it had to have some sort of beginning.
That completely ignores Big Bang theory which states that matter, energy, and time all had a beginning when the initial singularity exploded into being, becoming what we know as the universe.

ET Warrior
12-03-2007, 01:33 AM
Maybe early stages of the Big Bang theory thought that, but recently because of the discoveries that matter can be created from energy, and in fact be created in what appears to be completely empty space from random electromagnetic oscillations, current theory now posits that matter and energy (mostly energy) were all in existence at the time of the Big Bang, and in fact were in existence for all time before the Big Bang.

In fact, the very idea that the Big Bang somehow created mass and energy violates the principle of mass-energy conservation, and I much doubt it's still considered scientifically valid.

mur'phon
12-03-2007, 03:00 AM
Evidence of the flood- look at all the ice. that's where it went.

Sorry, but that dosen't cut it since you don't need a planet covering flood for that to happen. I'm talking about geological evidence of a flood covering the entire planet at the time humans existed.

The crocodiles and alligators: i just am wondering if moses took them on the ark or if they somehow survived the great flood

Probably not the answer you are looking for, but the most acepted scientific theory theory that a meteor caused the death of dinosaurs and large creatures, several small animals survived, and evolved into the creatures we have today. That means, no need to survuve a flood in the first place.

Including God as a factor, he is an imaginary number a factor that cannot fully be calculated. like Pi.

Just curious, what number is used then?

it seems my most basic point is impregnable... The Universe cannot and will not exist without God. even though we don't know how God can exist, there is no other explanation besidees that God must exist. God has to exist. If you don't liek it sorry, but every bit of scientific evidence there is and ever will be has an empty hole that only the factor named God can fill.

Evidence showing that ET's idea can't be right, and that the universe weren't created by invisible jawas or anything else, would be apreciated.

El Sitherino
12-03-2007, 03:11 AM
I think life is one stream of consciousness and we all exist in the mind of one solitary figure with severe multiple personality disorder. Our universe, our world, our lives, our creation of other life are all manifestations in this entity's mind.

Prove me wrong.

Web Rider
12-03-2007, 03:54 AM
It seems my most basic point is impregnable... The Universe cannot and will not exist without God. even though we don't know how God can exist, there is no other explanation besidees that God must exist. God has to exist. If you don't liek it sorry, but every bit of scientific evidence there is and ever will be has an empty hole that only the factor named God can fill.

Due to your lack of infinte knowledge, it can be reasonably assessed that you do not know, nor can you easily find/read/comprehend ALL scientific data that ever has or ever will exist. Due primarily to the two factors of A: you do not know eeverthing. B: you do not have access to this knowledge.

Therefore, your claim that God is the ONLY answer, is founded on no factual basis(see: you're lacking of ALL scientific knowledge ever). Therefore, your conclusion that God is the ONLY answer, is WRONG.

Why? because you can't claim to know the answer when you don't know the question.

The answer to "life, the universe, and everything" could be 42. It's just as probable that 42 created the universe as God did. I bet you that you can't prove me wrong either. Humans didn't invent numbers, they existed in the fundamental structure of the universe. Therefore, you can't prove, without infite knowledge(which you don't have), that 42 did not exist ourside the universe and wield the power to bring a universe into being.

Tommycat
12-03-2007, 04:45 AM
Well I USUALLY avoid religious arguments. But, claiming that god is the only answer to an unknown is very much a fallacy. It could be a giant turtle. It could be that the entire life cycle of the galaxy is on a very long repeating cycle of expansion and colapse. It could also be that high energy levels combined with extreme vacuum created the starting particles. If you ask me where this energy came from, I'll ask where did God come from. If one thing can exist outside of time, it is logical that more than one thing can exist outside of time.

Proof god does not exist: How about proving to me that ewoks don't really exist? Come on. You cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a mythical creature. You say God exists, I say he doesn't. Provide me with evidence that it exists. Try proving that there are no red striped Zebras. No matter how much evidence you show me, I'll always be able to say that they just haven't been found yet.

Evolution: No we did not decend from apes. That has been out the window for quite some time now. We share a common ancestor with apes, but no we are not from apes. The most complete fossil record is the equuis(horses) line. There were even "transitional" fossils found. Granted you'll never see a cross between a bird and a cat, but you shouldn't either. You would see a gradual trend. Like a horse with 2 toes and a horse with one toe mixed in the same herd.

Creation of life: Sorry, but the watchmaker theory, is so flawed it hardly makes sense to quote it in its entirety, but lets go with the basics. Things tend to fall in place in a certain order. Positive ions are attracted to negative ions. Things will naturally flow together. God needs not be a part of it.

Dinos and people: Hmmm so far the "evidence" for this has been disproven, and only stands if you don't take into account the real evidence in opposition. An example of one of them was the dino tracks in the mud next to the "human" tracks which were actually shown to have been made by a 3 clawed animal, yet the pseudo science sites STILL use that as "PROOF POSITIVE" that people existed with Dino.

Prime
12-03-2007, 03:41 PM
God is the only answer to the universe’s creation.

Other religions. We can debate that too. I say Christianity is right and every other religion is false. As simple as that, but I can’t prove it totally.

http://torch.cs.dal.ca/~mroger/threadpics/Incorrect.jpg

Corinthian
12-03-2007, 03:57 PM
Sorry for the detour...


Actually Rev7 nailed it if you look at the second account of creation in Genesis.

Genesis 2:6 -- Adam was created first, flora appeared in 2:8, fauna in 2:19 and since there was no suitable companion among them, Eve was created in 2:22.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Man is mentioned last.

Sorry if what I said looked argumentative earlier, Rev, Jae. I didn't intend it that way, but in retrospect it does look rather hostile.

tk102
12-03-2007, 04:01 PM
Yeah that's chapter 1, the first account of creation. Take a peek at chapter 2 for the alternative.

Rogue Nine
12-03-2007, 04:34 PM
Actually, man is still created after the animals.

(All quotes are taken from the New International Version)
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
The key word here is had, indicating that God had previously created the animals, then brought them before Adam once He had created him.

Of course, this is not to say that the Genesis creation is not without its inconsistencies.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning— the third day.

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man [The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20)] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
All emphasis is mine.

Here, we have two very different accounts of when God created flora. In Chapter 1 it is on the third day, well before the creation of man. Yet in Chapter 2, God creates man first, then creates plants and vegetation.

So much for the Bible not contradicting itself, huh?

tk102
12-03-2007, 04:46 PM
You could also put the emphasis on the word "Now" rather than "had". If you read it that way starting with 2:18 (...the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."), it suggests that God "had now tried" to create a companion for Adam by creating animals.


vvv LOL @mimartin

mimartin
12-03-2007, 04:48 PM
Yeah that's chapter 1, the first account of creation. Take a peek at chapter 2 for the alternative.
I’d be careful there TK that could be construed as the Bible having contradictions in it.

It's hard for me to believe anything without evidence. It is hard to read your post without you properly formatting them, but I gave it a shot. You keep writing that you need evidence, but you also say you are a Christian. Doesn’t being a Christian mean taking certain things on faith? I’m a Christian that believes in science. I also do not have this I’m right everyone else is wrong mentality many Christians have today, and probably always have had. I give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is his. I believe there is no evidence to prove God’s existence and everything about creation will have a scientific explanation. “Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe.”

So either I’m right and God does exist despite the lack of evidence or I’m wrong and all the evidence showing how the world was created without the assistance of a supernatural being points to there being no God.

As to saying all religions are wrong accept Christianity I’d really like to see some creditable evidence to that “so-called” fact. Also since there are many different denominations within Christianity, which one of them is correct? I mean according to the Church of Christ only they are getting into heaven, are they correct? The Roman Catholics believe, among other things, that Grace can only be distributed to you by Mary. Does that mean I’m going to Purgatory since I do not believe that? You have implied that Christianity is right, so which denomination within Christianity is right, because they cannot all be correct because of their rules about who can and cannot get into heaven.

Corinthian
12-03-2007, 05:00 PM
That's Caesar, Mimartin.

Uh...what are you talking about with this "Second Account"? The King James Version is quite different. What version are you quoting from? My version says.

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Nothing about a "Second Account".

Rogue Nine
12-03-2007, 05:47 PM
'Second account' refers to the second chapter of Genesis, which, as I've demonstrated, deviates slightly from the first chapter. Going on your version, it seems as if the difference is even more clear cut:

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

[...]

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
In the KJV, Chapter 2 states pretty clearly that animals were made after man.

tk102
12-03-2007, 05:47 PM
Wow, that is quite different.
New American Bible (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm)
English Standard Version (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+2)
New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202)

See especially the NIV Gen 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created..."

Goodness, so then two fundamentalists could fundamentally disagree because they adhere to different Bible versions?

Cliff notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis#The_dual_account_the ory)

mur'phon
12-03-2007, 05:53 PM
Anyone know what happened to Achilles? We could use his black belt in bible contradictions:)

Samuel Dravis
12-03-2007, 05:55 PM
Universal creation. Factors are too complex and perfect for this to be a random occurrence. The big bang may actually in a sense be true. The bible never said in exactly what form God created the heavens (universe) and the earth. God could have made a big explosion and controlled it to create the desired conditions. Or in some other way. The big bang couldn’t have been formed without something to create it, matter and energy cannot come out of nothing ness, except from God. God is the only answer to the universe’s creation. Every atheist says they’ll eventually find an explanation that disproves God, but have they yet? No. Until they actually do, I guess God is the only possible explanation, and I bet they’ll never find it as long as they don’t stop to consider that a creator might be the only answer to their unresolved equations. Since you only have two things in your entire post that have anything to do with the some reason to believe in Christianity, these are the only things I will respond to.

You've already seen ET's post above about matter and energy, so I'll try something different.

Suppose an atheist were to grant that the universe must have come from something. The Big Bang happened, right? It seems reasonable to suppose that it happened because of God. If you look closer, you'll find that this argument has been used before, most famously by Aquinas. However, there's a problem: God is said to have many attributes - he's all-good, all-powerful, all-etc. Why is that a problem? Because, even if we were to say that something created the universe, we have no other information on that "something" other than the fact of creation. In fact, we don't even know if that "something" was intelligent at all.

Unless we are prepared to take this on someone's word, I don't think it can be said that this argument proves anything about God. Any number of other things could have started the universe. We simply don't know.

I don't really like the anthropic principle but I suppose I had better quote it. "Conditions in the universe are perfect for humans because if they weren't humans wouldn't be around to say they aren't perfect."

Evolution in the bible is called adaptation, so the bible actually partially agrees with evolution in the natural selection part of it. How could tens of thousands of very complex species have come forth without a creator? Everyone knows it’s impossible for life to come out of a pool of chemicals. The factors are impossible. But when you think about it, god created man from dust. What if what I’ve just said was false was true, and God was the factor that caused the chemicals in the dust and goo to become life? Who knows? It might be possible that that is the case. People who wrote the bible don’t have the understanding of deciphering it we have today. They didn’t understand science as we did, but we have explanations for what they didn’t understand now. Explanations that may only further prove it.So abiogenesis is not worked out right now to an extent that includes actual successful experiments. Fine. I'm not sure why you'd say it was completely impossible, however. No one knows that, just as no one knows how many planets there are in the universe for abiogenesis to occur on. Maybe we got lucky. From what I have seen, the "impossible factors" you speak of were based on the spontaneous generation of a modern cell. Since abiogenesis is not about spontaneous generation of modern cells, that's not really an argument against it. You can look at the talk.origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) page on this for more information if you are interested.

The Roman Catholics believe, among other things, that Grace can only be distributed to you by Mary. Does that mean I’m going to Purgatory since I do not believe that? This might be a small note, but that's not what they believe. What catholics think of Mary seems to be the victim of widespread misinformation among non-catholics...

mimartin
12-03-2007, 06:20 PM
This might be a small note, but that's not what they believe. What catholics think of Mary seems to be the victim of widespread misinformation among non-catholics...Maybe, but as a child attending the Catholic Church we did pray though Mary's grace. I always remember the line "Mary full of grace." I went to the Catholic Church for Mass on Saturdays the Church of Christ on Wednesday Nights and the Baptist Church on Sundays (day and night). My mother was worried about my immortal soul. Even though I am a member of the Baptist Church today, I do not agree with any one denomination. For all I know the Catholics, the Church of Christ or any other religion might be correct. I just cannot practice some of them in good conscience, that may condemn my soul to hell, but I have to live with myself now.

So I meant no offense by giving that example and apologize if it offended anyone that was not my intention. I just wanted to know which Christian faith is correct from Arcesious.

Anyone know what happened to Achilles? He is around, but I hoping he stays away from my post in a religious thread. Achilles already has me questioning everything. :D

Web Rider
12-03-2007, 06:25 PM
Goodness, so then two fundamentalists could fundamentally disagree because they adhere to different Bible versions?
Fundamentally that seems to be the case. Does that really surprise you?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-03-2007, 07:20 PM
Wow, that is quite different.
New American Bible (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm)
English Standard Version (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+2)
New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202)

See especially the NIV Gen 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created..."

Goodness, so then two fundamentalists could fundamentally disagree because they adhere to different Bible versions?

Cliff notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis#The_dual_account_the ory)I am actually writing a version of the Bible for that will be distributed in cheap motels that rent rooms by the hour that will feature them being simultaneously created (multi-threaded creation).

tk102
12-03-2007, 08:19 PM
I am actually writing a version of the Bible for that will be distributed in cheap motels that rent rooms by the hour that will feature them being simultaneously created (multi-threaded creation).
Multithreaded? I multiprocessed.
sub init() {
# create in own image;
my $id = fork;
if ($id) {

# I am the Lord thy God
godstuff: {

if ((localtime)[6] == 0) {
# rest on Sundays...
sleep 84400;
}
smite_sinners();
answer_prayers();
redo godstuff;
}
}


elsif (defined ($id)) {
# I am a child of God

my $manhood=fork; # take a rib
if ($manhood) {
# I am Adam;
sin();
wait; # Eve died
die; # me too
}
else {
# I am Eve, spawned from Adam;
sin();
make_babies();
get_old();
die;
}
}
}

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-03-2007, 09:03 PM
Multithreaded? I multiprocessed.
...I used QThread for multi-platform Biblical Creation.

#include <qthread.h>
#include "alphaomega.h"
#include "qexistance.h"
#include "qworld.h"
#include "quniverse.h"

class QGod : public QThread {
protected:
QExistance existance;
QWorld world;
QUniverse universe;

public:
QGod() {
existance();
world();
universe();
}

virtual void run() {
while(!END_OF_DAYS) {
if(DAY != SUNDAY) {
for(int i = 0; i < POPULATION; i++) {
if(humans[i].getStatus() == SINNER) {
smite(humans[i]);
} else {
ignorePrayer(humans[i].getPrayer());
}
}
} else {
rest(24.0);
}
}
// clean up
~existance();
~world();
~universe();
}
};

I have a QHuman class too but it's still being debugged.

Tommycat
12-03-2007, 09:42 PM
I used QThread for multi-platform Biblical Creation.

#include <qthread.h>
#include "alphaomega.h"
#include "qexistance.h"
#include "qworld.h"
#include "quniverse.h"

class QGod : public QThread {
protected:
QExistance existance;
QWorld world;
QUniverse universe;

public:
QGod() {
existance();
world();
universe();
}

virtual void run() {
while(!END_OF_DAYS) {
if(DAY != SUNDAY) {
for(int i = 0; i < POPULATION; i++) {
if(humans[i].getStatus() == SINNER) {
smite(humans[i]);
} else {
ignorePrayer(humans[i].getPrayer());
}
}
} else {
rest(24.0);
}
}
// clean up
~existance();
~world();
~universe();
}
};

I have a QHuman class too but it's still being debugged.
Yeah and you'll never be able to get it out of QA in time for creation. Good thing God isn't a programer. We'd still be waiting for Earth(beta) to be released to the public haha....

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-03-2007, 10:04 PM
Yeah and you'll never be able to get it out of QA in time for creation. Good thing God isn't a programer. We'd still be waiting for Earth(beta) to be released to the public haha....The dinosaurs died from a buffer overflow.

Arcesious
12-03-2007, 10:14 PM
Oh dear.... so much happens overnight doesn't it?

but it seems others have helped out. has anyone noticed tthat the post sin this thread are bugged and are gettign mixed up?

I adhere to pure Christianity. My chruch studies the deeper part sof Chrisitnity, havign many, many, bible studies. We go deep. into the greek and hebrew and everything liek that. not so much into science but that's were i and the younger of us in our church come in during bible studies.

Catholicism is in no way chrisitinity. for one, it is much more rediculous. It is a corrupted version of pure christinity, whoever started catholicism obviously didn't read his bible very well. the same for mormonism. those religions based off of chrisianity are rediculous. catholism saying there's purgatory and that god is wrathful to everyone and hates you and that you have to plray to mary and confess your sins to a preist? and indulgences? come on people, that is definitly corrupted. either that, or pure Chrisnity is purified from catholicism. thnaks to Martin Luther, we have a pure bible. Sure i'm not part of the lutheran chrch, but that is one of the founding chruches of most pure christian churches. not non-catholic or morman or protestant of whatever
sorry if i offend anyone saying their religion is plain out incorrect, but that's what i'm here to prove.

can we restart this thread? everythings gettign mixed up and people are misinterpretting me due to the quoting i did. oi... i need some real christian scholars and scientists here right now...

Edit: Prime, you are in no position to post such things and think i will consider it relevent. Your post proves nothing. all it says is i'm wrong, which you can't prove unless you show me evidence. You may have an authoritative lookign picture of Mr.T, but that doesn't change anything really. please, give me proof you're right instead of making potsd like that. this is a debate. and that kind of post is not the way a debate truth is proved for either side.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-03-2007, 10:36 PM
I happen to hold Mr. T in higher regard than any Christian scholar or "scientist" and find your views on A-Team holymen offensive. In my opinion, the fact that Prime has been touched by the holy seal lends far more weight to his argument than anything you could offer without properly cited facts from a reputable source.

Arcesious
12-03-2007, 10:44 PM
Look at Prime's post on the other page. it proves nothing. If he's so smart from being an administrator then i'd liek to see him show me some proof.

tk102
12-03-2007, 10:47 PM
Catholicism is in no way chrisitinity. for one, it is much more rediculous. It is a corrupted version of pure christinity, whoever started catholicism obviously didn't read his bible very well.I'd love to hear what "pure Christianity" is. Roman Catholicism = Christianity up until the time of the Reformation, friend. The Catholics were the ones chose which books went into the New Testament so you could say they made the Bible you know and love.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-03-2007, 10:51 PM
Look at Prime's post on the other page. it proves nothing. If he's so smart from being an administrator then i'd liek to see him show me some proof.Prime is a Super Moderator. Your post is a blatant lie and I submit that your opinions be rendered null and void.

mimartin
12-03-2007, 10:59 PM
Catholicism is in no way chrisitinity. for one, it is much more ridiculous.Sorry, but the definition of Christianity is a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament. Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Son of God prophesied in the Old Testament and the Gospel is revealed by Jesus in the New Testament. Catholicism falls within that category. Now if you want to change your remarks to say the Protestant’s are correct we could leave the Catholic Church out of that discussion.

Of the different Christian denominations which one is correct? Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Presbyterians….. You said Other religions. We can debate that too. I say Christianity is right and every other religion is false. However denominations within the Christian faith have different rules and beliefs, so my question is which one, two, three or ten do you consider right?

Arcesious
12-03-2007, 10:59 PM
Good point. but the catholics didn't actuslly write the REAL bible and it's books did they? they may have made a special catholic bible but they never wrote the books themselves. they pretty much stole their religion off of Christinty in the first place because Chrisitnity itself wasn't fully organized until Martin Luther. The bible at that time was a loose book of a few foudn books written by ancient Christians. Ever heard of the Dead sea scrolls?
Read up. Thouroughly. if you miss an important part you might accidently make a debatign statement that isn't true. So anyone who reads this, read it thouroughly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls Those books of the bible weren't found by the catholics... these were found in the late 1940's. The events with martin luther and the catholics happened way, way farther back in time...

EDIT: Mimartin. None of those other denominations are correct in my opinion. i guess i'm not really part of a specific denomination am I? but the closest denomination i am to i guess is Lutheran, but they don't have everything straight either. I only consider the denomination of Christianity right that also applies itself to science and studies the bible itself deeply. although that denomination doesn't really have a specific name.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-03-2007, 11:04 PM
Chrisitnity itself wasn't fully organized until Martin Luther.Is that why nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition?

Arcesious
12-03-2007, 11:08 PM
The spanish inquisistion?
Wikipediaing it...
Hmm... interesting. So they launched a new attempt to reestablish catholicism because of the reformation. but how does that effect this debate?

Edit:
Whoops. i shoudln't have said tha tone sentence that way.
Martin Luther helped organize the bible for reading by others, and he helped begin to reorganize Chrisiantity. but he didn't fully reorganize it. that statement was incorrect on my part and i needed ot correct it.

EDIT: whoops. i acciddentally double posted. i thought i was editng my other post but i accidently made a reply instead. my bad.

You can always go back and copy your double post, delete the latter message, hit 'edit post' on your first post, and paste the copied text into that post. :) --Jae

tk102
12-03-2007, 11:13 PM
Mr. Arcesious, you really need to read up thoroughly yourself on the history of Christianity. The first pope was the apostle Peter. Now do you know which religion has popes? That's right Catholicism. That was the first Christian church. And believe me good sir, it was well-organized for 1400 years before Martin Luther ever sought to reform it. The books of the New Testament that became canon were selected by the Bishop of Alexandria in 367 AD.

I'd ask that you please do some research yourself before asking others to do the same.

Arcesious
12-03-2007, 11:17 PM
but didn't you see how i said the catholics didn't write the bible? the catholics are a denomination of christinity, i realize that now after being corrected. but the catholics had corrupted true christinity which was already in the bible, but not truly official. that's when martin luther came in and reorganized stuff to make the real Christian church, at that time caleld lutheran by everyone. the reformation was a reorganization of things. event hough the catholics are still here, there was a new denomination reorganized from off of the catholic church by luther. the books of the bible the pope didn't include to becoem canon are canon now though.

tk102
12-03-2007, 11:29 PM
but didn't you see how i said the catholics didn't write the bible? the catholics are a denomination of christinity, i realize that now after being corrected. but the catholics had corrupted true christinity which was already in the bible, but not truly official. that's when martin luther came in and reorganized stuff to make the real Christian church, at that time caleld lutheran by everyone. the reformation was a reorganization of things. event hough the catholics are still here, there was a new denomination reorganized from off of the catholic church by luther. the books of the bible the pope didn't include to becoem canon are canon now though.

No. Do you need a family tree? There was no Bible that defined Christianity, there was no proto-Christianity from which Catholics splintered from. The name "Roman Catholic" was used to denote adherence to Roman authority and to distinguish itself from the Protestantism.


Jesus
|
apostles -- Peter
|
"the Church" (needed no other name)
|
New Testament canonized
|
many popes
|
Martin Luther
/ \
Catholic Protestant
/ \
other Lutheran

itchythesamurai
12-03-2007, 11:59 PM
"So you see, by applying the basic principles of the scientific method to the matter, we learn very quickly that the myth of the chupacabra is just that - utter crap. Now, if you apply the same principles to Catholicism, an interesting thing occurs... " - Dr. Venture

Arcesious
12-04-2007, 12:17 AM
Still... the point that God is th eonly current explanation to the universe's creation still stands...

But i guess you are right about the religons and order of them steming off of each other part. It's just that Chrisnitnty and science have been taught to me so thouroughly throughout my life that It seesm to me as the most true belief of all. I'm only folloing what my beliefs tell me here- to try to brign you to belief in Christinity. but i cannot force it on you. that's why this is a debate. oi...i grow tired of debating and it's starting to only make me mad at everyone... sorry other Christian guys but i want to hand this thread over to you fully. i don't think debating is for me. too stressful. the only real reason i really debate here i guess is to pass time waiting for new mods to come since i've got nothing better to do...
this doesn't mean i admit defeat in these debates, it's just that i'm tired of it.

Corinthian
12-04-2007, 12:20 AM
Arsescious, Catholics are just as much of a Christian as a Baptist or a Lutheran or any of the other denominations. I'm not a big fan of Catholic Doctrine, but they're still Christians.

As for the previous discussion before you started your incredibly arrogant and irritating taunting by doing "Bible Coding"...

The Book mentions God placing Adam within the Garden of Eden BEFORE it says that he brought forth birds and beasts and plants. Now, the most logical interpretation, unless you take the position that the writers of the Bible were complete morons who didn't re-read what they wrote, is that it refers to God populating the Garden with plants and animals to make it a proper paradise on Earth. I suspect it lost something in it's repeated translations.

Arcesious
12-04-2007, 12:37 AM
i didn't start the "bible coding" and i didn;t really participat ein the part about plants and animals before or after humans beign debated.

Prime
12-04-2007, 12:41 AM
i need some real christian scholars and scientists here right now...I have a physics degree, so I'll play on the scientist side if you like.

Prime, you are in no position to post such things and think i will consider it relevent. Actually I am in position to do so, and I agree that my response was most relevant.

Your post proves nothing. You are right. But then again, it proves just as much as your posts that pull logical leaps and false factual statements out of thin air. My post was just much less wordy.

all it says is i'm wrong, which you can't prove unless you show me evidence.What evidence do you want to see? Can I pull my "evidence" out of nowhere to?

You may have an authoritative lookign picture of Mr.THe is quite authoritative looking, isn't he. He does indeed pity the fools.

please, give me proof you're right instead of making potsd like that. Let me get this straight. I respond to "God is the only answer to the universe’s creation" and "I say Christianity is right and every other religion is false. As simple as that, but I can’t prove it totally" and you ask me for proof? Give me a break.

But since you asked, all you've posted thus far is logical leaps and scientific inaccuracies. If you want to have a debate, fine, but lets at least start from a point past outright falsehoods.

Comments such as these have been made and responded to before, and to be honest I didn't feel like going over them yet again, so I only commented on the two points above. But if there is something in particular you want me to comment on, I will.

this is a debate. and that kind of post is not the way a debate truth is proved for either side.You're right. Posting things without any supporting evidence doesn't help anything, does it?

Jae Onasi
12-04-2007, 12:47 AM
Maybe early stages of the Big Bang theory thought that, but recently because of the discoveries that matter can be created from energy, and in fact be created in what appears to be completely empty space from random electromagnetic oscillations, current theory now posits that matter and energy (mostly energy) were all in existence at the time of the Big Bang, and in fact were in existence for all time before the Big Bang.

In fact, the very idea that the Big Bang somehow created mass and energy violates the principle of mass-energy conservation, and I much doubt it's still considered scientifically valid.

So you're saying Einstein's theory of relativity is now rendered void?

Would you care to show proof of the existence of matter/energy prior to the Big Bang? There is absolutely no proof that matter is created from these electromagnetic oscillations, and it begs the question, even if there was proof, of where the energy for these oscillatons comes from.

Arcesious
12-04-2007, 12:47 AM
Sorry for insulting you Prime. My sincere apologies. (i'm being serious.)

Samuel Dravis
12-04-2007, 12:57 AM
Maybe, but as a child attending the Catholic Church we did pray though Mary's grace. I always remember the line "Mary full of grace." I went to the Catholic Church for Mass on Saturdays the Church of Christ on Wednesday Nights and the Baptist Church on Sundays (day and night). My mother was worried about my immortal soul. Even though I am a member of the Baptist Church today, I do not agree with any one denomination. For all I know the Catholics, the Church of Christ or any other religion might be correct. I just cannot practice some of them in good conscience, that may condemn my soul to hell, but I have to live with myself now.Perhaps I could explain it a bit more clearly, then. Mary is considered a saint, and a particularly special one at that since she was Jesus' mother and was without original sin. Like they can do to all saints, catholics pray to Mary in the form of an intercessory prayer. That is, they're not asking Mary to grant something, like grace; they're asking Mary to help them pray to God about or for something. Perhaps a fine distinction, but it is quite real. For example, a little farther on in the Hail Mary prayer which you referenced earlier, it says, "...pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death." It's similar to asking one of your friends to pray for you, except this friend is in heaven.

So I meant no offense by giving that example and apologize if it offended anyone that was not my intention. I just wanted to know which Christian faith is correct from Arcesious.Not at all, and I do agree that your point still stands.

Jae-- Vacuum energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy) and the Casimir effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) may help you.

mimartin
12-04-2007, 01:03 AM
Perhaps I could explain it a bit more clearly...
Thanks for the explanation, that will help me understand the 98% of my family that is Catholic and that makes a lot more sense to me (not that I have to understand it).

True_Avery
12-04-2007, 01:06 AM
http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/nutri_facts.jpg

Look at Prime's post on the other page. it proves nothing. If he's so smart from being an administrator then i'd liek to see him show me some proof.
http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/vader_irony.jpg

Other religions. We can debate that too. I say Christianity is right and every other religion is false.
http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/broad_brush.jpg

Still... the point that God is th eonly current explanation to the universe's creation still stands...
http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/o_logic.jpg

Catholicism is in no way chrisitinity. for one, it is much more ridiculous.
http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/pot_kettle.jpg

I don’t want this DISCUSSION to become a flame war, so seriously let’s be civilized. I’ll be civilized, unlike how I was in the past a few months ago.I say Christianity is right and every other religion is false. As simple as that, but I can’t prove it totally.

Congratulations! You have been one of only a handful of debaters that can keep a hilarious discussion going for days and never get old.

And, for this thread, I present you with this!
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/677906/2/istockphoto_677906_gold_trophy_with_clipping_path. jpg

A solid gold trophy for honorary ignorance, logical leaps, and scientific inaccuracies! I wish I could say only a few get this trophy, but sadly thousands are passed out per day. But, feel glad that you now have one on your shelf.

What a waste of a thread and even a waste of space on the Internet. You attacked all other religions, had zero proof behind anything you said, and cited nothing you threw out for debate. You assume you are right, and everybody else is wrong while you make posts with zero attempt at spelling and very little attempt to research something before making a wild, hurtful claim.

You seem like you are honestly trying to debate, but please... if you are going to continue, research before hand, cite your sources, and please spell check your posts before entering them in for serious discussion. This thread had potential for discussion, but from the start you set yourself up to get flamed and looked down on by putting yourself above everybody else.

Jae Onasi
12-04-2007, 01:17 AM
Catholicism is in no way chrisitinity. for one, it is much more rediculous. It is a corrupted version of pure christinity, whoever started catholicism obviously didn't read his bible very well. the same for mormonism. those religions based off of chrisianity are rediculous.

Arcesious, I'm assuming your version of Protestantism is likely evangelical if not fundamentalist. You need to be aware of some basic church history, however, before you put down other branches of Christianity.

Catholicism was around long, long before Protestantism, starting very soon after Christ died. For nearly 1500 years, it was the keeper of the faith for millions. You read the Bible? Thank your Catholic forebears for painstakingly copying original Biblical manuscripts for hundreds of years until the printing press was invented in the 1600's. For some monks, this was their only work in life and was their service to God and Christ. Some of the finest universities and hospitals in the world were started and run by the Catholic church. Thank your Catholic forebears for keeping Christianity itself alive for 1500 years, and arguably for the two millenia and then some. Luther didn't nail his 95 theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenburg until 1517. The first Baptist church was established in the US in 1639. The Methodist church formed in 1729. The Pentecostal revival, which birthed the Assemblies of God and other Pentecostal churches, didn't happen until 1901.

Ask any Catholic if they believe Christ died for their sins to save them, and they'll say yes. As far as I know, that's the basic criteria in the Bible for determining salvation ("Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"). Just because they don't call it 'getting saved' or 'having a personal relationship with Christ' doesn't mean they don't experience that. I may not agree 100% with different sects of Christianity (I don't adhere to everything the Baptists say, either), but that doesn't mean I'm going to put those sects down as somehow wrong or inferior. There are many, many things that can be learned from all the different branches of Christianity.

Basically, Christianity boils down to a paraphrase of Rabbi Hillel's famous comment. Love God, believe in Christ as savior for our sins, and love our neighbors. The rest is all commentary.

tk102
12-04-2007, 01:36 AM
Jae-- Vacuum energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy) and the Casimir effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) may help you.
Thanks for the links Samuel. Maybe Prime, the physics guru can make more sense of it than I. :p
In fact, the very idea that the Big Bang somehow created mass and energy violates the principle of mass-energy conservation, and I much doubt it's still considered scientifically valid.
In the same vein as Jae though, I wonder how this addresses the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Going back in time, things become more and more orderly. The galaxies were closer together, the temperature was greater. Not to mention Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two astronomers running a radio telescope in New Jersey earned a Nobel prize for detecting the echo of the Big Bang in 1978. In 2006, two more scientists earned another Nobel for their work studying the blackbody radiation which further suggested an epoch event from which the spectrum emerged. The measurements agreed with predictions a spectrum that would be created made by a hot Big Bang.

PhysOrg.com (http://www.physorg.com/news79074220.html)
NASA.gov - COBE satellite (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/)
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE)

Samuel Dravis
12-04-2007, 02:10 AM
Tk, I don't think that the inflationary universe model is in question in ET's case, merely the source of the energy required to make the Big Bang happen - that is, did it come from nowhere, or from a theological first mover, or from the energy similar to what cause the Casimir effect, or some other mechanism?

Tommycat
12-04-2007, 02:26 AM
Hah Catholics aren't REALLLY Christians? Sounds to me like the ole "No true Scottsman" argument. Claiming that the ones who formed the basis of your religion are not truly Christians is just sad. Technically they would have more right to say that Protestants are the ones who are not real Christians.

See all I have seen in this thread is a lot of "You prove it doesn't exist" from Arcesious. Yet he has not given any proof, nor any sources, nothing better than My invisible and untouchable diety did it, now you have to prove that something that cannot be seen, touched, tasted, or even felt doesn't exist.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in God. But I believe in God because of my faith. Science has nothing to do with why I believe in God. I have faith in a power greater than myself. If you want to try to pursuade people to be christians using science, be prepared to defend with REAL and DEFINATIVE evidence.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-04-2007, 03:02 AM
As for the previous discussion before you started your incredibly arrogant and irritating taunting by doing "Bible Coding"...Best part of the thread IMO.

ET Warrior
12-04-2007, 03:55 AM
Would you care to show proof of the existence of matter/energy prior to the Big Bang? There is absolutely no proof that matter is created from these electromagnetic oscillations, and it begs the question, even if there was proof, of where the energy for these oscillatons comes from.
Would you care to show proof of the existence of some divine being that created everything? The laws of conservation of matter-energy are quite explicit that matter-energy is neither created nor destroyed. The energy for the oscillations was always there, and will always be there in one form or another. If it is acceptable to state that an infinitely complex being has existed for infinity, then it should also be acceptable to take the less complicated approach and state that the matter-energy in the universe has existed for infinity.

@tk102 - I'm not saying the Big Bang didn't happen, I'm saying that the energy that was necessary for it to happen always existed, and was converted into matter after the Big Bang.

Thank you to Samuel Dravis for the links on Vacuum Energy and Casimir Effect.

Achilles
12-04-2007, 05:54 AM
Tk, I don't think that the inflationary universe model is in question in ET's case, merely the source of the energy required to make the Big Bang happen - that is, did it come from nowhere, or from a theological first mover, or from the energy similar to what cause the Casimir effect, or some other mechanism? The source is a bit dated and not terribly academic, but still might be a fun "what if" read. Enjoy!

Zero Energy Universe (http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html)

mimartin
12-04-2007, 06:22 PM
Please clear a few things up for me. You say that only Christianity is correct We can debate that too. I say Christianity is right and every other religion is false.I requested you tell me which denomination within the Christian faith is correct and you wrote: None of those other denominations are correct in my opinion. i guess i'm not really part of a specific denomination am I? but the closest denomination i am to i guess is Lutheran, but they don't have everything straight either. I only consider the denomination of Christianity right that also applies itself to science and studies the bible itself deeply. although that denomination doesn't really have a specific name. So just so I’m clear and I may be completely wrong in this regards are you saying all religion is false including Christianity except for your narrow view of it? Sorry, if that is offensive, because I personally would consider such accusations against myself truly distasteful, but that is what you have written. Did I get this wrong? What proof do you have that you are correct? Before you say the Bible and leave it at that, may I also have the chapter and verse you are using to come up with this? As tk102, Corinthian and Rogue Nine have pointed the importance of knowing the version of the Bible you are using, can I have that too?

Now, Christianity wasn’t an official religion until after Jesus Christ died on the cross, I know. You are correct
But there were prophets such as Moses, who wrote part of the bible before that time, and Christianity wasn’t actually named, but it was a religion.Yes, it was a religion and it was called Judaism during Moses time.

Arcesious I have no problem with your post if you would just qualify your remarks with a “this is my opinion” or “this is how I believe.” Stating you are right and everyone else is wrong is not what I would consider a discussion. It sound more like you are trying to preach to us. My views on religion are not what I would consider main stream, but they work for me as I’m sure yours must be working for you. That said, I have no way to know that mine are correct and neither do you. It is a matter of faith and nothing more. If you believe they are right for you then you must have faith they are correct, but others views on religion or the lack there of are just as valid for themselves. Many believe there is an attack on Christianity in this country, so they are attacking right back. My question then is how attacking another person’s beliefs any more right than having your own attacked. I believe the Bible says something about turning the other cheek.
The source is a bit dated and not terribly academic, but still might be a fun "what if" read. Enjoy!Zero Energy Universe (http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html) It was technical enough for me. Have problem getting my mind wrapped around something from nothingness, just the accountant in me. Good read even if I’m not intelligent enough to understand it all.

Achilles
12-04-2007, 06:42 PM
It was technical enough for me. Have problem getting my mind wrapped around something from nothingness, just the accountant in me. Good read even if I’m not intelligent enough to understand it all.Well, the good news is that if you're a religious person, you already believe in "something from nothing". They're just presenting a different "something from nothing" which is theorically testable/falsifiable :D

Glad you enjoyed the read. Take care.

RobQel-Droma
12-04-2007, 06:53 PM
I'd love to hear what "pure Christianity" is. Roman Catholicism = Christianity up until the time of the Reformation, friend. The Catholics were the ones chose which books went into the New Testament so you could say they made the Bible you know and love.

*cough* Er, no it's not. :)

Sorry, but the definition of Christianity is a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament. Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Son of God prophesied in the Old Testament and the Gospel is revealed by Jesus in the New Testament. Catholicism falls within that category. Now if you want to change your remarks to say the Protestant’s are correct we could leave the Catholic Church out of that discussion.

Um, that's a very interesting way to define a religion. Do you even know anything about what Catholicism teaches?

Mr. Arcesious, you really need to read up thoroughly yourself on the history of Christianity. The first pope was the apostle Peter. Now do you know which religion has popes? That's right Catholicism. That was the first Christian church. And believe me good sir, it was well-organized for 1400 years before Martin Luther ever sought to reform it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Peter was never the first pope. Catholicism believes that, but Christianity never has. In fact, the core of Christianity and its books were mostly estabilished before the Roman Catholic church came along. I'd ask you to do some research yourself, my friend.

You need to realize that Christianity and Catholicism are two seperate things. Roman Catholicism was the part of Christianity that was made the state religion of the Roman Empire and given power, whereas "pure" Christianity, in the Bible, is a much different religion. Sure, Catholicism was kind of like the mutation of Christianity, but the two are not equal.

Arsescious, Catholics are just as much of a Christian as a Baptist or a Lutheran or any of the other denominations. I'm not a big fan of Catholic Doctrine, but they're still Christians.

From a certain point of view, yes.... they have become so large and split from most Christian doctrines that its hard to see the line between "denomination" and "new religion", but I see your point.

The Book mentions God placing Adam within the Garden of Eden BEFORE it says that he brought forth birds and beasts and plants.

Could you show me where you are referring?

Ask any Catholic if they believe Christ died for their sins to save them, and they'll say yes.

They also used to exchange money for salvation.

As far as I know, that's the basic criteria in the Bible for determining salvation ("Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"). Just because they don't call it 'getting saved' or 'having a personal relationship with Christ' doesn't mean they don't experience that.

I think this just might be a common misconception.

Mark 16:16 : "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved...."

So no, it isn't just about believing. The Bible is very clear about that.

I may not agree 100% with different sects of Christianity (I don't adhere to everything the Baptists say, either), but that doesn't mean I'm going to put those sects down as somehow wrong or inferior. There are many, many things that can be learned from all the different branches of Christianity.

My, but then we come very close to "there is no truth", or "all religions lead to God", don't we?

Basically, Christianity boils down to a paraphrase of Rabbi Hillel's famous comment. Love God, believe in Christ as savior for our sins, and love our neighbors. The rest is all commentary.

And be baptized for the remission of your sins. And devote your life to Him. And some other minor things. I'm not arguing that those things aren't trademarks of Christianity, but I'd advise you to please not define Christianity to someone's statement (like this person's) especially when it does not seem that you really know exactly what the Bible teaches.

If it is acceptable to state that an infinitely complex being has existed for infinity, then it should also be acceptable to take the less complicated approach and state that the matter-energy in the universe has existed for infinity.

I think it takes just about equal faith to state either.

mimartin
12-04-2007, 07:04 PM
Um, that's a very interesting way to define a religion. Do you even know anything about what Catholicism teaches?I don't know your question is very vague. What are you saying they don't fall under the definition of Christianity? I was defining Christianity, not Catholicism. However according to most of the world Catholicism does fall under the definition of Christianity. Are you saying they don’t believe in Jesus Christ?

Commander Thire
12-04-2007, 07:08 PM
I have a strong belief that you cant Have Such an intricate design such as man, animals, even the whole universe, our galaxy without a designer... And i agree with the first post athersits say that they will one day come up with a theroy that disproves god well its been over a hundred years since atheism was introduced and still nothing imo that says everything about them. They say one day but its been a pretty long time and still nothing. In my eyes this wont change.

Achilles
12-04-2007, 07:22 PM
I have a strong belief that you cant Have Such an intricate design such as man, animals, even the whole universe, our galaxy without a designer... Because of its complexity? Surely then what ever designed these things must have been more complex that the things themselves, correct?

Therefore, something more complex than the universe can exist without a designer, but anything less complex must have a designer? Just want to make sure I'm understanding the argument correctly.

And i agree with the first post athersits say that they will one day come up with a theroy that disproves god well its been over a hundred years since atheism was introduced and still nothing imo that says everything about them. Well, I'm sure atheists say a lot of things, but no self-respecting person of science would presume to disprove something that is not testable. IMO, such statements are just as foolish as those that claim to have irrefutable evidence of god's existence.

They say one day but its been a pretty long time and still nothing. In my eyes this wont change.So the default winner is "god did it"? One explanation demands evidence but the other doesn't? Again, just hoping to clarify.

Thanks in advance for your response.

ET Warrior
12-04-2007, 07:31 PM
I think it takes just about equal faith to state either.I strongly disagree. We have falsifiable, testable, and repeatable tests that have shown that the law for conservation of matter-energy is as valid as possible. Never have we seen the creation of matter-energy ex nihilo, so why does it take any faith to presume that this law has always been true? It takes an amazingly greater amount of faith to believe that something infinitely more complex than the entire universe that has always existed created it all out of nothingness. (which couldn't really have been nothingness if this creator existed in it...)

I have a strong belief that you cant Have Such an intricate design such as man, animals, even the whole universe, our galaxy without a designer...Simply because you don't believe it does not make it so. I can choose to believe that gravity is not a real force and if I were to really put my mind to it I could fly out of my window. This means little because if I jump out that window I don't care how much faith I have in my new belief I'm still going to end up face first on the ground.

If you believe that there is a designer who is so powerful as to shape the very universe we exist in, then would you care to ponder why this designer also has such a low success rate with it's creations? (>99% of all creatures that have ever existed are now extinct.)

Commander Thire
12-04-2007, 09:54 PM
He/She put us here in Confidence. Not nesciarly excpeting us to thrive but to atleast stay true to what our writings say. Now i am not a closed minded person. Hell i kinda think budhasim has some good ideas and beliefs.

And I know that just because i dont belive it doesnt make it not possible Im just saying that with everything that we know all of the intricate designs all the factors IMO add up to His/her excitence.

Thats just it though isnt it? We really dont no much and we cant jump to assumptions.


The Low sucsess rate is that He/She cant just intervine when he/she pleases. Us men Us Mortals need to help ourselves IMO thats what i belive part of the reason we were put here. Some need to fail so others can succeed.

SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT

Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise

The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?

Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?

Any way i Dont really want to get involved more with this I apoligize if i offended any body but this is what i belive in...

Arcesious
12-04-2007, 10:53 PM
Anybody who aks me to answer a question after eadign one of my posts in this thread, please realize i've dropped out of debatign this, and now i'm just watchign to see how it turns out. but if i see something of Chrisitnity i can really support well if it's debated i'll debate for it. so basically i'll debate agian here if there's a part that i have enough knowledge and ammo up my sleeve to debate and win.

Achilles
12-04-2007, 11:17 PM
He/She put us here in Confidence. Not nesciarly excpeting us to thrive but to atleast stay true to what our writings say. Which writings? The OT? The NT? The Qu'ran? Some other pagan religion that doesn't have written canon? They are all equally valid in their supporting evidence, so I can't imagine that which one we chose to work from matters really matter, in and of itself.

Now i am not a closed minded person. Hell i kinda think budhasim has some good ideas and beliefs. Agreed. I think 99% of all belief systems have some very good ideas. That doesn't make them a value-add in my book since any of those "good parts" can be rationalized via moral philosophy and don't come with any of those pesky "thou shalt kill peopl that do _______".

Keeping with open mindedness though, I would like to think that any rational person will be willing to accept christianity (or any other religion) that had sufficient supporting evidence. That none exist is not a testament to the pig-headness of atheists, nor should it be viewed as such.

And I know that just because i dont belive it doesnt make it not possible Im just saying that with everything that we know all of the intricate designs all the factors IMO add up to His/her excitence. Fair enough. But how do you know that it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster? You can't prove that it was god. I can't prove that it was the flying spaghetti monster. Should we fight over our differing beliefs or should we rationally conclude that neither one of us really knows that the best course of action would be to hold off on adopting either mythological explanation?

Hint: I vote for the latter. ;)

Thats just it though isnt it? We really dont no much and we cant jump to assumptions. But you do though. You assume that it was the judeo-christian god and plan your life accordingly. One of us has jumped to an unsupportable conclusion while the other is comfortable not knowing something that is currently unknowable.

The Low sucsess rate is that He/She cant just intervine when he/she pleases. Us men Us Mortals need to help ourselves IMO thats what i belive part of the reason we were put here. Some need to fail so others can succeed. So much for an omni-benevolent god ;)
Can't really love us if he sent some of us here destined to fail. PS: so much for free will too. Afraid you can't have it both ways :)

SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT

Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise While I can probably guess at which numbers you're referencing, I'd prefer to simply ask what source you're citing. Somewhere on one of these pages is a buried thread on abiogenesis that could probably use resurrection.

Something for you to think about: It doesn't matter how astronomical the odds, it only had to happen once in 13.7 billion years in order for us to be here talking about it now. The fact that we are, tells us that it did. So whether or not it happened isn't up for debate. The question is how it happened. Just so we're crystal clear on what the debate is truly about. ;)

The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve? I'm comfortable not knowing the answer. You?

Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. Yes, some philosophers did/do think that. I'm not sure how that makes the argument more valid though. Clearly people with educations make mistakes and allow bias to cloud their work all the time. Therefore, adding Ph.D to one's name does not tend to blow my hair back.

So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist? I prefer to think in terms of "moral" and "immoral" rather than "right" or "wrong". Yes, I do believe in morality because a great deal of neuroscience and supporting behavioral science tells us that we're hard wired for moral behavior (google "mirror neurons" when you have some spare time).

Since I do not have any reason to believe that this morality was bestowed upon me by some higher power and modern research shows me that there are sufficient evolutionary benefits to having developed moral centers in the brain, I choose not to make the whole thing more complicated than it needs to be.

Any way i Dont really want to get involved more with this I apoligize if i offended any body but this is what i belive in...None taken. I will admit that I'm slightly peeved that you opted not to answer any of the questions that I posed to you even though I took the time (twice) to write complete responses back to your messages. Good news I'm used to that sort of thing, so I'll be over it soon.

Take care.

tk102
12-04-2007, 11:43 PM
You need to realize that Christianity and Catholicism are two seperate things. Roman Catholicism was the part of Christianity that was made the state religion of the Roman Empire and given power, whereas "pure" Christianity, in the Bible, is a much different religion.
I acknowledge that prior to Constantine, Chrisitianity was likely quite different. Careful there with your use of the term "Bible" however. That suggests there was One central teaching back in the day. No such thing. There was the Old Testament and various epistles, letters, and gospels some of which were appended and others omitted. The idea that Pure Christianity existed as homogenous belief is false and overly romantic. There were arguments even among the different sects, calling each other heretics. The Chrisitian Jews for example did not accept Gentiles as followers of Christ. The Gnostics believed that matter (that is, the world the God created) was evil and saw Jesus as a savior from the evil world.

The Bible as you know it today and the most cogent aspects of modern Christianity owes its structure to the First Council of Nicaea under Constantine in 325. This is the root of modern Christianity, Catholic and Protestant alike.

Sure, Catholicism was kind of like the mutation of Christianity, but the two are not equal.Of course the church become corrupt with political power and inclusions of such policies and indulgences. Martin Luther was in the right to point out the hypocrisies in the church's doctrines. But given that, let us not attempt to idolize pre-Roman Christianity as something pure. Christianity owes its secular longevity to the Roman Empire which organized it, codified it, and spread it across the known world. Given the infighting in pre-Roman Christianity, the odds were much more likely that Christianity would never have coalesced.

Rogue Nine
12-05-2007, 12:01 AM
Mark 16:16 : "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved...."

So no, it isn't just about believing. The Bible is very clear about that.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Hi.

Tommycat
12-05-2007, 12:42 AM
Keeping with open mindedness though, I would like to think that any rational person will be willing to accept christianity (or any other religion) that had sufficient supporting evidence. That none exist is not a testament to the pig-headness of atheists, nor should it be viewed as such.

To be fair, there is evidence, however the evidence is usually too personal to be useful to more than the individual. Without sounding too cliche' I felt the touch of god. But that is MY own experience. And it was enough to convert me from a pure athiest. In fact I used to be on the side debating against the existence of god. It also happens to be why I don't condemn those that choose not to believe. People have to find god in their own way.
Fair enough. But how do you know that it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster? You can't prove that it was god. I can't prove that it was the flying spaghetti monster. Should we fight over our differing beliefs or should we rationally conclude that neither one of us really knows that the best course of action would be to hold off on adopting either mythological explanation?
Or do as scientists do and go with an explanation that makes sense to you, until a better explanation comes along. Kind of how we first believed that all creatures were created at once, then new evidence showed that creatures evolved over time. Then we believed man evolved from ape. Now we postulate that man and ape had a common ancestor, but humans are not decended from apes.

Can't really love us if he sent some of us here destined to fail. PS: so much for free will too. Afraid you can't have it both ways :)
Well basing it off of the creation mythology, that free will was given to us to make us more like god. The freedom to worship and make our own mistakes. God gives warnings when you are on the wrong path, to give you an opportunity to correct that. Again though that is a very specific thing, and I certainly don't expect you to believe me when I say I have felt the presence of God and felt his guidance. At least not until you have felt it yourself. I wouldn't when I was an anti-theist(one completely opposed to theism). In fact I quite suspect you'll think of me as just another kook attempting to convert people. In fact I'm not. Should you find god, Great, If not, Oh well. It doesn't bother me.
I'm comfortable not knowing the answer. You?
I'm not comfortable with it. I'd prefer to say that we don't know the answer yet, but in time maybe we'll gain a better understanding of how those laws work. I mean we know how a great many of them work. Saying you are comfortable not knowing, is like being one of the people happy not knowing the world was round. Happy to not know that the Earth revolved around the sun. It is in the seeking of knowledge that we make new discoveries. We find more information on how and why it works. Would you be happy not knowing why certain bugs can walk on water but people cannot(well maybe one, but reports on that one are um... contested)?

Prime
12-05-2007, 01:02 AM
Not nesciarly excpeting us to thrive but to atleast stay true to what our writings say. But people of religion can't even agree what the correct writings are, and those who agree on the writings can't agree what they actually say!

When religious text are thrown out to support a religious idea, it always seems to come back to the same argument. You are either looking at the wrong book or you misunderstood what it said. My interpretations are all right and yours are all wrong.

Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. So what? Take a deck of cards and deal them all out one by one. You will get some order of those 52 cards. Shuffle and try again, and repeat for the rest of your life. You probably won't ever get the same order again. But guess what, you did get that highly improbable order once.

The odds of winning the lottery are also astronomical, but people still win it.

Improbability is not a proof that something can't happen. Incredibly improbably things happen all the time.

Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. No they don't.

So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?I don't know. But luckily there are people that are actually looking into what the answer might be (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1685055_1685076_1686619,00.html) instead of just shrugging and saying "Goddunit." :)

Jae Onasi
12-05-2007, 01:13 AM
Would you care to show proof of the existence of some divine being that created everything? The laws of conservation of matter-energy are quite explicit that matter-energy is neither created nor destroyed. The energy for the oscillations was always there, and will always be there in one form or another. If it is acceptable to state that an infinitely complex being has existed for infinity, then it should also be acceptable to take the less complicated approach and state that the matter-energy in the universe has existed for infinity.

@tk102 - I'm not saying the Big Bang didn't happen, I'm saying that the energy that was necessary for it to happen always existed, and was converted into matter after the Big Bang.

Thank you to Samuel Dravis for the links on Vacuum Energy and Casimir Effect.

Big Bang theory currently states time/matter/energy were created. Einstein did the ground-breaking work on that, Hubble, Hawkings and other noted scientists have continued work on that, and their writings on the Big Bang theory are readily available. The laws of physics work until a fraction of a second ( 10^-35 or so) after the big bang explosion. Prior to that point (but still after the big bang event) scientists have acknowledged that the laws of physics break down. Matter and energy in this universe were _created_ at that point, as was time as asserted by Einstein, Hubble, Hawkings, and others. They have not existed eternally, and belief that matter/energy/time has existed eternally is considered obsolete.

I said nothing about God in that particular post, actually--I was addressing only the science aspects of matter/energy/time.

Ravnas
12-05-2007, 02:23 AM
Let me get one thing straight. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic for the Last two years, and I for one am somewhat astounded at the idea that People think that Catholics aren't real Christians. Of Course, though I also know that Martin Luther was just a bit Anti-Semitic but you can take that to the Bank. I frankly am still new to the World of debating but All I can think of to say is that It seems odd that Christianity and Science are incompatible. I should know, since I'm an Evolutionist and a Proponent of The Idea that Adam and Eve never existed, but I'm getting off kilter to my point, if there ever was one. But I think I'm trying to say that I always thought Christianity has always been a successful religion because of how it can be interpreted to its followers, and the religion it self is suffering when one person can accuse another sect of Christianity of not being a true part of Christianity.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-05-2007, 02:55 AM
Let me get one thing straight. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic for the Last two years, and I for one am somewhat astounded at the idea that People think that Catholics aren't real Christians.Yeah, you can safely ignore those.

Achilles
12-05-2007, 01:38 PM
To be fair, there is evidence, however the evidence is usually too personal to be useful to more than the individual. I don't know that we could empirically define that as 'evidence' for the existence of any deity, let alone the judeo-christian god. The fact that people have spiritual experiences is evidence that we are capable of having spiritual experiences. The experience itself says absolutely nothing about the cause or the source of the experience.

If you choose to believe that the cause/source is the judeo-christian god, then that is certainly your right, however we cannot apply the scientific method to that belief. On the other hand, if you believe that the cause/source is biological, then you can certainly apply the scientific method to that belief. If one belief isn't testable and only has benefit for one person, then it would appear to have a lot less utility than a belief that is testable and has benefit for everyone. My 2 cents.

Without sounding too cliche' I felt the touch of god. But that is MY own experience. Well, at one point, I felt the "touch of god" too...actually more than once. I still have those spiritual experiences, I just no longer attribute them to an external source.

And it was enough to convert me from a pure athiest. In fact I used to be on the side debating against the existence of god. It also happens to be why I don't condemn those that choose not to believe. People have to find god in their own way. What is a "pure athiest"? Kudos for your open-mindedness.

Or do as scientists do and go with an explanation that makes sense to you, until a better explanation comes along. Kind of how we first believed that all creatures were created at once, then new evidence showed that creatures evolved over time. Then we believed man evolved from ape. Now we postulate that man and ape had a common ancestor, but humans are not decended from apes. I submit that we're splitting hairs, but your point is absolutely valid (having a "best answer based on the evidence" is the same thing as "not knowing for sure" in my book :D)

Well basing it off of the creation mythology, that free will was given to us to make us more like god. The freedom to worship and make our own mistakes. God gives warnings when you are on the wrong path, to give you an opportunity to correct that. I'm afraid this doesn't address my point though. You can either believe in predestination (god has a plan for you) or free will (your choices are your own and have consequences). Predestination presents problems for god's alleged omni-benevolence. Free will presents problems for god's alleged omnipotence. Regarding god's alleged onmiscience, well, I think the book of genesis discounts that ;)

Again though that is a very specific thing, and I certainly don't expect you to believe me when I say I have felt the presence of God and felt his guidance. At least not until you have felt it yourself. I wouldn't when I was an anti-theist(one completely opposed to theism). In fact I quite suspect you'll think of me as just another kook attempting to convert people. In fact I'm not. Should you find god, Great, If not, Oh well. It doesn't bother me. Nope, the "kook-alarm" hasn't gone off yet.

I'm not comfortable with it. I'd prefer to say that we don't know the answer yet, but in time maybe we'll gain a better understanding of how those laws work. I mean we know how a great many of them work. Saying you are comfortable not knowing, is like being one of the people happy not knowing the world was round. Happy to not know that the Earth revolved around the sun. It is in the seeking of knowledge that we make new discoveries. We find more information on how and why it works. Would you be happy not knowing why certain bugs can walk on water but people cannot(well maybe one, but reports on that one are um... contested)?Well I respect that you've choosen to interpret what I said that way, but in my opinion, it's not up to you to determine what I meant.

I agree that the pursuit of knowledge is both noble and necessary, but I don't loose sleep at night because there are certain questions that I don't have answers to. I don't feel compelled to make up answers and portray them as being absolute truth when I encounter something that I cannot explain (i.e. the meaning of life, how the universe was created, where our morality comes from etc).

To sum up: I think you're confusing "acceptance of the unknown" with "blissful ignorance". They are not the same thing.

Thanks for your response. I enjoyed the read.

Arcesious
12-05-2007, 07:40 PM
you know... after readign these past few posts i finally understand the veiws of athiests. I can see why they debate agaisnt relgiosn and beliefs and such. Maybe this udnerstandign i have fianlyl realized will help me debate better because i understand why they vewi what i say int he way they do.
Tommycat i know hat you mean when you say you have felt led by God's touch before. If only it was possible to soemhow show those who don't believe in what we believe what we've experienced that makes us so devoted to our belief in God.... but that'll never happen is the problem. people aren't telepathic and the internet doesn't have a telepathic option.
i guess i havn't really proved anything in my post here but that wasn't my intention. whatever this post contributes i hope it helps athiest sunderstnad us a little better for why we believe what we do.

RobQel-Droma
12-05-2007, 09:12 PM
I don't know your question is very vague. What are you saying they don't fall under the definition of Christianity? I was defining Christianity, not Catholicism. However according to most of the world Catholicism does fall under the definition of Christianity. Are you saying they don’t believe in Jesus Christ?

I'm not sure exactly how it is so vague, but whatever.

According to most of the world, perhaps, but does that mean its truth? No. Muslims believe in Jesus as well, but would you define them as Christians?

Because of its complexity? Surely then what ever designed these things must have been more complex that the things themselves, correct?

Therefore, something more complex than the universe can exist without a designer, but anything less complex must have a designer? Just want to make sure I'm understanding the argument correctly.

I know this isn't directed to me, but I'm not sure what your point is by this question. I've never looked at God from a level of complexity, at least the way you are. I don't measure God by: "He's complex than anything else, so He's God" (which would be valid, I guess), but in the sense you are saying it, you could say that the most complex human on Earth is better than anyone else.

Keeping with open mindedness though, I would like to think that any rational person will be willing to accept christianity (or any other religion) that had sufficient supporting evidence. That none exist is not a testament to the pig-headness of atheists, nor should it be viewed as such.

Wait... none exists? Where did you get that idea?

In fact, did you know that evolution is what actually has no hard evidence?

Let me get one thing straight. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic for the Last two years, and I for one am somewhat astounded at the idea that People think that Catholics aren't real Christians. Of Course, though I also know that Martin Luther was just a bit Anti-Semitic but you can take that to the Bank.

And then you say:

I should know, since I'm an Evolutionist and a Proponent of The Idea that Adam and Eve never existed, but I'm getting off kilter to my point, if there ever was one. But I think I'm trying to say that I always thought Christianity has always been a successful religion because of how it can be interpreted to its followers, and the religion it self is suffering when one person can accuse another sect of Christianity of not being a true part of Christianity.

I'm sorry, but everything you just said contradicts the teaching of the Bible, which I thought was the basis for true Christian belief. Now you can interpret it how you wish? Er..... that's not Christianity. Just go read the book yourself. In fact, the first book is Genesis, which starts right off with Adam and Eve.

I'm not trying to bash your faith... but if the Bible is what Christians follow (and there is no doubt about it, just like Muslims and the Koran) then you seem to follow a much different religion than I do, one that I would not quite call "real Christians." (no offense meant by "real", I'm just explaining what I mean by the term) :)

Yeah, you can safely ignore those.

A polite question: do you adhere to either faith?

So what? Take a deck of cards and deal them all out one by one. You will get some order of those 52 cards. Shuffle and try again, and repeat for the rest of your life. You probably won't ever get the same order again. But guess what, you did get that highly improbable order once.

The odds of winning the lottery are also astronomical, but people still win it.

Improbability is not a proof that something can't happen. Incredibly improbably things happen all the time.

It is a strong argument against something, however. It should not be the only one, but still....

And seriously, do you believe that all life on this Earth is as complex as a set of 52 cards? Or even one in a million? It is astronomically greater; I'm not even sure if it could be computed. I'm not saying that is the only reason I believe in Creation, but I think you underestimated a little.

Secondly, if you are arguing then from the point of evolution, you must understand that random mutations aren't good things. They're bad. In fact, according to Darwin's own law of natural selection, it would weed out those who have mutations because they wouldn't be able to survive. Take any kind of system in the human body. It would be so complex, and each part would depend so much on the other, that it would all have to coexist at the same time. Each individual part could not develop one at a time, or the system would not work, and the organism would die - from natural selection. Or, if you wanted to argue that it could have happened at the same time, and it's merely a matter of odds, then you might want to chalk up another billion to the number. Or trillion. Or "google." For each single system.....

I don't know. But luckily there are people that are actually looking into what the answer might be instead of just shrugging and saying "Goddunit."

Which is not what, I hope, any Christian is doing. But let me point out that science has agreed/failed to destroy God for thousands of years. Not trying to say, well, "that must mean that 'Goddunit'", but you get my point. In fact, Christianity and the Bible have even had some things about the nature of the Earth and the Universe that took science a very, very long time to accept.

Quote:
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Hi.

Oh, well that certainly voids my verse, yep. What... is this like a challenge, or something? Like, "let's see who can win by throwing verses in each other's face!"

Oh well - I can play that game, if you want to:

And Peter said to them, "Repent therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 3:6 : Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Matthew 3:11 : "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

Matthew 3:13 : [ The Baptism of Jesus ] Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

Matthew 3:16 : As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

Mark 1:5 : The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Mark 1:8 : "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Hi to you as well.

mimartin
12-05-2007, 09:24 PM
I'm not sure exactly how it is so vague, but whatever.

According to most of the world, perhaps, but does that mean its truth? No. Muslims believe in Jesus as well, but would you define them as Christians?

Well the Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet not the son of God. Catholics believe Jesus was the son of God. Not a very good example in my opinion, but to answer your question (one that I already answered in the thread) I do not know more the about Catholics then you can learn from attending Mass for about 10 years of my life. I do however know that Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and not a prophet like the Muslims. By definition, they are Christians and that is the truth as far as I am concern.

Achilles
12-05-2007, 09:35 PM
I know this isn't directed to me, but I'm not sure what your point is by this question.Perhaps post #86 (the one I responded to) might help to provide context for the question. If not, then I believe I quoted the applicable part in the post that you quoted. I hope that helps.

I've never looked at God from a level of complexity, at least the way you are. I don't measure God by: "He's complex than anything else, so He's God" (which would be valid, I guess),Commander Thire's point seemed to be (don't know for sure because he never answered my question) is that you can't have intricacy without design. The logic doesn't hold water though because just a human mind capable of designing a car has to be more intricate than the car itself, a supreme consciousness capable of willing the universe into existence has to be more intricate than the universe itself. Therefore the whole "humans/animals/universes are too complex to have evolved on their own therefore the judeo-christian god can be the only possible answer" argument (aka "goddunit", aka "goddidit") doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

but in the sense you are saying it, you could say that the most complex human on Earth is better than anyone else.I acknowledge that this is how you've interpreted what I said.

Wait... none exists? Where did you get that idea? Erm...because there isn't any? Do you have some?

In fact, did you know that evolution is what actually has no hard evidence?Interesting statement. Perhaps it would be in your best interest to do a little bit more research on the topic before continuing down this path.

Personally, I find the evolution of the whale to be the most interesting because it involves a transition from land mammal to sea mammal, but I've heard that the evolution of the horse is the most completely documented. I hope one (or both) of those prove to be sufficiently interesting starting points for you. Best of luck with your research.

PS: Also, a shameless plug for one of my favorite "other" forums, EvC Forums (http://www.evcforum.net/). Assuming that you don't want to take my word for it, you might find the arguments presented by actual evolutionary biologists more persuasive. Just a warning that scientific literacy is required. Enjoy!

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-05-2007, 09:44 PM
A polite question: do you adhere to either faith?I'll give you three guesses.

RobQel-Droma
12-05-2007, 09:48 PM
I acknowledge that prior to Constantine, Chrisitianity was likely quite different. Careful there with your use of the term "Bible" however. That suggests there was One central teaching back in the day. No such thing. There was the Old Testament and various epistles, letters, and gospels some of which were appended and others omitted.

I beg to differ. Jesus' apostles did not teach diverse teachings. In Galatians, I think, Paul specifically says that if anyone, even an angel, teaches something different to what they (the apostles) were teaching, they were to be accursed. The OT and the NT do not contradict each other; those other gospels, such as the gospel of Judas and whatnot, were false gospels. In fact, many of them were fakes put forth by other sects to try and justify what they were doing.

The idea that Pure Christianity existed as homogenous belief is false and overly romantic.

Why? In the beginning it was.

And, by definition, Pure Christianity would exist that way. I would not call these other sects "pure" by any means, since Pure Christianity would follow the original form of Jesus' teaching/the Bible.

There were arguments even among the different sects, calling each other heretics. The Chrisitian Jews for example did not accept Gentiles as followers of Christ. The Gnostics believed that matter (that is, the world the God created) was evil and saw Jesus as a savior from the evil world.

Sure, just like any other religion. However, I do believe that there is only one truth, so these others followed a mistaken form of the Gospel. In fact, many blatantly disregarded parts of the Bible, which I would think would be the basis for any Christian beliefs. I would not call them "Pure Christians" by any sense.

Of course the church become corrupt with political power and inclusions of such policies and indulgences. Martin Luther was in the right to point out the hypocrisies in the church's doctrines. But given that, let us not attempt to idolize pre-Roman Christianity as something pure. Christianity owes its secular longevity to the Roman Empire which organized it, codified it, and spread it across the known world. Given the infighting in pre-Roman Christianity, the odds were much more likely that Christianity would never have coalesced.

Oh, I agree. But it started out as something pure, and then was corrupted by different factors. But those other denominations and viewpoints that split off can not be regarded as true Christianity.

Well the Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet not the son of God. Catholics believe Jesus was the son of God. Not a very good example in my opinion, but to answer your question (one that I already answered in the thread) I do not know more the about Catholics then you can learn from attending Mass for about 10 years of my life. I do however know that Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and not a prophet like the Muslims. By definition, they are Christians and that is the truth as far as I am concern.

So any one that believes in Jesus as the son of God is, by default, a Christian?

Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope (Christians don't), and they have a line of popes descending from him that are the highest authority on Earth to them. He is the ultimate power to them, and he can exercise his judgement on anyone in the Catholic Church. This kind of power over the Church or judgement placed in the hands of one man is not what the Bible teaches, nor is it what any other Christians adhere to.

Catholics also believe in transubstantiation.

Catholics also used to sell indulgences to buy salvation; still pray to Mary and others as saints; and etc....

I could go through a list of others, some minor, and some not, but I hope you see my point. None of what I listed is agreed with by the Bible/Christians.

I'll give you three guesses.

I love you people. I ask a question, and you answer with a smart, snooty reply.... and one that doesn't answer the question.

So I'm asking you again.

Answer the question, please.

Interesting statement. Perhaps it would be in your best interest to do a little bit more research on the topic before continuing down this path.

Personally, I find the evolution of the whale to be the most interesting because it involves a transition from land mammal to sea mammal, but I've heard that the evolution of the horse is the most completely documented. I hope one (or both) of those prove to be sufficiently interesting starting points for you. Best of luck with your research.

I'd love it if you show me this documented hard evidence.

Commander Thire's point seemed to be (don't know for sure because he never answered my question) is that you can't have intricacy without design. The logic doesn't hold water though because just a human mind capable of designing a car has to be more intricate than the car itself, a supreme consciousness capable of willing the universe into existence has to be more intricate than the universe itself. Therefore the whole "humans/animals/universes are too complex to have evolved on their own therefore the judeo-christian god can be the only possible answer" argument (aka "goddunit", aka "goddidit") doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Oh, I agree. Simply saying that since "everything is so complex, it must be God" is rather weak. I think it is evidence for the existence of God, but I wouldn't use it as hard evidence since it is so fragile.

I acknowledge that this is how you've interpreted what I said.

Again.... I love these answers. Tell me how you really meant if it I'm wrong.

Erm...because there isn't any? Do you have some?

Before I open up with it, would you kindly clarify what it is you are saying there is no evidence for? God, the Bible, Jesus.....? I'm sure you stated this somewhere already, but I'd like to know before I start spouting things that aren't really relevant to what you said.

mimartin
12-05-2007, 10:12 PM
So any one that believes in Jesus as the son of God is, by default, a Christian?
Yes. By definition, I would say they are Christian, so yes. Many other Christian faiths have different doctrine that I may not agree with, but my opinion does not make them non-Christian. I would also assume that you do not have the power to make them non-Christians either.

Rogue Nine
12-05-2007, 10:30 PM
Oh, well that certainly voids my verse, yep. What... is this like a challenge, or something? Like, "let's see who can win by throwing verses in each other's face!"

Oh well - I can play that game, if you want to:

And Peter said to them, "Repent therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 3:6 : Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Matthew 3:11 : "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

Matthew 3:13 : [ The Baptism of Jesus ] Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

Matthew 3:16 : As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

Mark 1:5 : The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Mark 1:8 : "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Hi to you as well.
Yeah, and none of those verses explicitly state 'You must be baptized in order to receive Jesus as your Savior'.

And I was really just responding to something in your earlier post...

So no, it isn't just about believing. The Bible is very clear about that.
with...
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
...to show that, yeah, it essentially does just boil down to believing.

RobQel-Droma
12-05-2007, 10:34 PM
Yes. By definition, I would say they are Christian, so yes. Many other Christian faiths have different doctrine that I may not agree with, but my opinion does not make them non-Christian. I would also assume that you do not have the power to make them non-Christians either.

So what you are saying is that they all are following their own *interpretation* of Christianity? If so, I would agree. Its just that Catholics are much different than say, from Church of Christ christians or other not-so-denominational churches, which try and follow the Bible as closely as possible. Catholics, as I pointed out, have very, very different doctrine; since it was Catholics we were talking about, that is why I was trying to make a distinction between Catholics and "Pure/True Christians", which Catholics are not (simply by what the Bible teaches - if you accept Christians that completely follow the Bible as "Pure/True Christians"). Surely you don't believe that they both have almost exactly the same beliefs, because they do not.


Rogue Nine.... I'm not able to get LF to respond, so I can't go back and quote you. But, in response to what you said:

I'm not sure how Mark 16:15-16 isn't explicit enough.

[ Jesus talking to his disciples ] "Go therefore into all the world, preaching the Gospel to all Creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,..."

That's pretty explicit. Add that to all my other quotes..... I think its pretty obvious. Simply saying "oh look, here's one verse about salvation that doesn't mention baptism, we should throw all the other verses out" doesn't really work.

Besides, I think its pretty logical to assume its not just belief.

"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."
-- James 2:18-20 [NRSV]

So are the demons saved? By your logic, they (and even Satan!) are saved, if it is merely belief.

Well, anyways, LF is really giving me trouble, so I think I'm signing off for tonight. I'll see if its working any better in the morning.

mimartin
12-05-2007, 11:09 PM
I am not saying anything different then I originally posted. Catholics are Christians. As to which religious belief is right or which is wrong, that is not my decision and I leave that judgment with God. It is not mine to judge. Just because I judge a religion not right for me does not have a barring into if that religion is correct or not. It just means if I am willing to practice it or not.

I have not seen this “so-called” true/pure or whatever you want to call it form of Christianity. Every Christian religion I have personally participated in (Catholic, Baptist and Church of Christ) all had different doctrine and interpretations of the Bible. We cannot agree on what a 200-year-old document says how is everyone going to agree on a 2000-year-old document's meaning.

RobQel-Droma
12-05-2007, 11:15 PM
mimartin - I would differ that we can infer what being a Pure Christian is by what the Bible says. Some people may interpret things differently, but usually it is to advance their own beliefs, and the passages they use are obviously misused. I think it tends to be very clear on what is right and wrong - it is inspired by God, after all, so it is His standard of Christianity. Anyone that follows something different to what the Bible says, is, sadly, wrong.

Rogue Nine
12-05-2007, 11:29 PM
Rogue Nine.... I'm not able to get LF to respond, so I can't go back and quote you. But, in response to what you said:

I'm not sure how Mark 16:15-16 isn't explicit enough.

[ Jesus talking to his disciples ] "Go therefore into all the world, preaching the Gospel to all Creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,..."

That's pretty explicit. Add that to all my other quotes..... I think its pretty obvious. Simply saying "oh look, here's one verse about salvation that doesn't mention baptism, we should throw all the other verses out" doesn't really work.
Wikipedia article on Mark 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Scholarly_conclusions)
Curious how this verse is the only one that explicitly mentions baptism as a requirement. Curious how this section of Mark is the subject of a debate on Biblical authenticity.

Besides, I think its pretty logical to assume its not just belief.
Explain please, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."
-- James 2:18-20 [NRSV]

So are the demons saved? By your logic, they (and even Satan!) are saved, if it is merely belief.
It isn't my logic, it's the logic of John. And I would think supernatural beings like demons would not only believe there is one God, but know for certain. After all, He kicked them out of Heaven.

Oh, and belief was certainly enough for the thief on the Cross. Why not for the rest of us?

RobQel-Droma
12-05-2007, 11:34 PM
Curious how this verse is the only one that explicitly mentions baptism as a requirement. Curious how this section of Mark is the subject of a debate on Biblical authenticity.

Curious how this seems to be enough for you to dismiss it entirely. Rather subjective, don't you think?

Explain please, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I was referring to what I said right afterward.

It isn't my logic, it's the logic of John.

Did John ever say that all you had to do was be baptized? If he did (which he didn't), he was alone among the other disciples.

And I would think supernatural beings like demons would not only believe there is one God, but know for certain. After all, He kicked them out of Heaven.

Er, that's right. And..... again..... do you think that they are going to Heaven because of their belief only?

Oh, and belief was certainly enough for the thief on the Cross. Why not for the rest of us?

Because we aren't hanging from a cross about to die with no hope of surviving the day.

Tommycat
12-05-2007, 11:53 PM
I don't know that we could empirically define that as 'evidence' for the existence of any deity, let alone the judeo-christian god. The fact that people have spiritual experiences is evidence that we are capable of having spiritual experiences. The experience itself says absolutely nothing about the cause or the source of the experience.
Hence why I said it would only be useful to the individual. In scientific terms, it is merely useless data. Extrapolations based on personal experience are not empyrically testable. NOW if God were to reshape the rockies into a sign that said "God Was Here" I think that would be pretty clear evidence that a greater entity existed. However the proof of something that we cannot empyrically test through the five generally accepted senses, is near impossible.

If you choose to believe that the cause/source is the judeo-christian god, then that is certainly your right, however we cannot apply the scientific method to that belief. On the other hand, if you believe that the cause/source is biological, then you can certainly apply the scientific method to that belief. If one belief isn't testable and only has benefit for one person, then it would appear to have a lot less utility than a belief that is testable and has benefit for everyone. My 2 cents.
I agree. Then again I'm not attempting to force the belief that God exists down your throat. Just that in MY experience, I have seen and felt things which I attribute to God(though whether it is YHWH I have not said, And I do not know if it is).

Well, at one point, I felt the "touch of god" too...actually more than once. I still have those spiritual experiences, I just no longer attribute them to an external source.
If your experience was what I had you might feel different. Then again you might not. For all I know it could have been a freak occurance, but it is what makes the most sense to me.

What is a "pure athiest"? Kudos for your open-mindedness.
Pure athiest as in being completely opposed to the idea of a supreme being existing at all. Being completely skeptical of anything to do with any religion. As for open mindedness: Having been on the other side of the argument I understand that it takes a lot of proof to sway your opinion, and I know that I cannot provide sufficient evidence of it.

I submit that we're splitting hairs, but your point is absolutely valid (having a "best answer based on the evidence" is the same thing as "not knowing for sure" in my book :D)
Well, just making sure you stay on your toes and clarify your positions properly. It keeps the strawmen at bay :D

I'm afraid this doesn't address my point though. You can either believe in predestination (god has a plan for you) or free will (your choices are your own and have consequences). Predestination presents problems for god's alleged omni-benevolence. Free will presents problems for god's alleged omnipotence. Regarding god's alleged onmiscience, well, I think the book of genesis discounts that ;)
Predestination is kinda like a fairly open ended game. You have a beginning, and an end. What you do in between those two points is your choice, but you still inevitably come to that end(kinda reminds me of the Yorrik lines from Hamlet haha). Of course I have my issues with the bible itself. I think it is a great colection of stories, but whether it is the word of god, or an accurate recounting of god's actions on earth, I don't really believe that. I mean heck they just found evidence that it wasn't the Red sea, but it was a mistranslated REED sea.
Nope, the "kook-alarm" hasn't gone off yet.
Thanks. You're less of an anti-theist than I was haha.

Well I respect that you've choosen to interpret what I said that way, but in my opinion, it's not up to you to determine what I meant.
On these here internets determining what one means is much more difficult than in person. I was merely asking for clarification. I admit it seemed to come off kinda "preachy" but with fundies about, you have to watch yourself.

I agree that the pursuit of knowledge is both noble and necessary, but I don't loose sleep at night because there are certain questions that I don't have answers to. I don't feel compelled to make up answers and portray them as being absolute truth when I encounter something that I cannot explain (i.e. the meaning of life, how the universe was created, where our morality comes from etc).

To sum up: I think you're confusing "acceptance of the unknown" with "blissful ignorance". They are not the same thing.
Meh I guess I just try to understand as much as possible. Probably why I was so opposed to religion. Religion is more about accepting what is out there.

Thanks for your response. I enjoyed the read.
Thanks for reading. And definately thanks for the response.

Oh and a couple of things you may want to read up on(especially battling fundies) The story of Attis and Cybelle(it is an interesting read and follows very closely with the story of Jesus Christ). And yes the most complete fossil record is for the horse. It goes back to the "dawn horse" or Eohippus. It has "transitional fossils" as well as information on how these transitions took place rather rapidly. It is definately very useful for arguing against creationism(I told you I used to argue from your standpoint haha).

@Rob:
Actually it isn't just believing, it is accepting Jesus as your savior. Demons are not able to do so. They are of another existence level. Therefore even if they ask forgiveness, they cannot be allowed back in.

ET Warrior
12-06-2007, 12:00 AM
I'd love it if you show me this documented hard evidence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

There's a nice brief wikipedia article about it.


There is an amazing amount of hard evidence for evolution on all scales. We see it every winter with the constant evolution of the Flu Virus and our attempt to inoculate ourselves against the new strain.

The Peppered Moth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth#Evolution) is a pretty potent example that we have direct evidence of.

Also, you may want to read up on Transitional Fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil)

True_Avery
12-06-2007, 12:24 AM
snipped flaming/baiting comments --Jae
So what you are saying is that they all are following their own *interpretation* of Christianity? If so, I would agree. Its just that Catholics are much different than say, from Church of Christ Christians or other not-so-denominational churches, which try and follow the Bible as closely as possible. Catholics, as I pointed out, have very, very different doctrine; since it was Catholics we were talking about, that is why I was trying to make a distinction between Catholics and "Pure/True Christians", which Catholics are not (simply by what the Bible teaches - if you accept Christians that completely follow the Bible as "Pure/True Christians"). Surely you don't believe that they both have almost exactly the same beliefs, because they do not.
You are going to prove all other religions wrong but yours by presenting interpretation as evidence?
Interpretation is what religion is all about.

Your so called "True Christianity" is your singular religion. I can guarantee you that nobody else follows your so called "True Christianity". Your Interpretation of Christianity is what you define as Christianity, thus by all means you are fully and completely saying:

"I am right, and everybody else is wrong."

I guarantee you that if you lined up 100 "True Christians", that you would get 100 different definitions of what Christianity is. And then you would simply state that they are all wrong in some way but you.

And even if you had a group that believed every last single thing you believe, then you have just proved that individuality does not exist. If anything, you have proved you follow a cult.

And even if everything you believe turns out to be right... Guess what? You are now dead and the only human soul in heaven. You believe you are singularly right and all other religions and people are wrong, so you must be the only person allowed true salvation. And even if there are others, you yourself would get the satisfaction of saying "Hahaha! I was right and all you idiots were wrong!"

From the time I spent in Christianity, I seem to remember that God has the final say in all of this. Not you.
In fact, did you know that evolution is what actually has no hard evidence?

There is plenty of evidence, you just refuse to accept that it exists. We could present you with all the evidence in the world, and you would most probably reject it.
School taught evolution. The Television and Internet have pieces on it all over the place. The news even has specials on it.
As you said:
"Curious how this seems to be enough for you to dismiss it entirely. Rather subjective, don't you think?"

[ Jesus talking to his disciples ] "Go therefore into all the world, preaching the Gospel to all Creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,..."

So, because I do not accept God and Jesus fully into my life, AND get baptized I will not be saved? So, I am to live with sin my entire life, and when I die I get thrown down to one of the layers of hell while you get to go to the happy, jolly gated community full of people that sinned and put down other people their entire life?

And even if I follow Jesus and God my entire life, if I do not get baptized I don't get to join the private club?

You make getting salvation sound like signing up for insurance. Do this and that, make sure you get this done, and keep within these limits for the rest of your known life. How is that any different than exchanging salvation for money? At least money for the church can be put to causes like orphanages and schools.

An old man throwing water on you is nothing but an old man throwing water on you. I highly doubt a god is going to care if you got water splashed on you at one point in your life.

Oh, and belief was certainly enough for the thief on the Cross. Why not for the rest of us?

Unless you get water thrown on you by an old guy you are not on god's radar. It doesn't matter how good or bad you were in life.

Because we aren't hanging from a cross about to die with no hope of surviving the day.

So, in order to be saved... you have to get baptized right? Thats what you said, so it must be absolute truth. But wait... you just said that if you are dieing on the cross, then you can be saved anyway. How can that be? That means there are loopholes!

"So are the demons saved? By your logic, they (and even Satan!) are saved, if it is merely belief."

You must be wrong that that too then! They are doomed, but they can still believe! That means they can be saved without being baptized! But... but... you can't be wrong! You are a True Christian! There must be something wrong here...

Did John ever say that all you had to do was be baptized? If he did (which he didn't), he was alone among the other disciples.
But... but... but

That would mean some lines in the bible would have to be wrong and contradictory to each other! There is no way that could be possible!

Listen. You cannot put the ENTIRE bible out for evidence of your claims and then say "Well, you know, that part isn't right... but the rest of it is!". That would mean that more parts of the bible would also have to be incorrect. Which means, by chance, the entire book could actually be wrong. Oh no! That means your so called "True Christianity" could also be wrong!

You have, again, proved my point in saying that you believe your interpretation of the bible is correct and everybody else's is wrong.

My, but then we come very close to "there is no truth", or "all religions lead to God", don't we?
According to you, there is your truth and your truth only. And everybody else gets nothing because they do not have your personal interpretation of christianity.

Sure, just like any other religion. However, I do believe that there is only one truth, so these others followed a mistaken form of the Gospel. In fact, many blatantly disregarded parts of the Bible, which I would think would be the basis for any Christian beliefs. I would not call them "Pure Christians" by any sense.

Consider the fact that there are many belief systems and that if you were 100% right in your beliefs, you would be God. Be as angry as you want with me, but I don't stand people that put themselves above all other beliefs.

I do not consider my opinion right. My opinion is simply another opinion. But I do not hold it over other people. There are a limitless amount of religions, beliefs, and gods and I understand that if any of them were truly right, then everybody would follow it.

Oh, and on a final note for you... One last quote:
"I'd advise you to please not define Christianity to someone's statement (like this person's) especially when it does not seem that you really know exactly what the Bible teaches."

Follow what you preach before you tell other's how and what to believe.

Good Day.

Arcesious
12-06-2007, 12:40 AM
Evolution... here we go. something i can debate.
Half correct, ahlf incorrect.
Yes, there is evolution today. In my bible it's called adaptation. as it says God gave the animals the ability to adapt, but they all go after their own kind.
There are a lot of animals that couldn't have formed by evolution, including giraffes and woodpeckers. because of natural selection, they wouldn't be able to have evolved in the first place according to evolution, because through evolution, one part evovolves at a time, but they need all the parts that were said to have evolved in the first place, but then it doesn't work, and evolution can't apply there. there's lots of other animals that poke big holes in the evolution thoery, ones i can't think of at the moment. (somebody can ya find something to help me prove this?) see, the problem is, most all scientists that study evolution seem to be athiests, and they don't want to disprove a theory they so greatly believe is true. Every now and then in their studies, they'll coem accross an animal that couldn't have formed from evolution, and they decide to ignore it and not tell anyone about it, which leaves it to chrisitna scientists and the liek to hav eto dig deep to fidn those animals the evolutionists didn't want to mention.
Humans need every part of their body, and evolution won't work with apes to humans if natural selection is real, which it obviously is. Some parts humans have and vitally need apes don't have.
woodpeckers for one:
http://www.verticalthought.org/issues/vt13/evolution.htm
and some other site that has soem stuff agaisnt evolution.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm

(one thing, i'm not sure if i agree with everything stated on these two sites.)

EDIT: Rob-Qel-Droma are you part of a baptist church or something? The bible says that you have to believ ein Jesus to be saved , and baptism is optional, not required, but suggested. the verses asyign you must be batised to be saved of your sins are often misinterpretted, they actually shoudl mean that batism will clenase you of your sins, not save you. baptist teachings tedn to have a slight contradiction problem because the foudner of the baptist beliefs misunderstood those verses slightly. I have nothing agaisnt baptist churches or baptism itself however. and i want to warn you don't let true_avery bother you, she just likes to make fun of people and make them mad for her won amusement watching them get all mad about it.

Tommycat
12-06-2007, 01:02 AM
There are a lot of animals that couldn't have formed by evolution, including giraffes and woodpeckers. because of natural selection, they wouldn't be able to have evolved in the first place according to evolution, because through evolution, one part evovolves at a time, but they need all the parts that were said to have evolved in the first place, but then it doesn't work, and evolution can't apply there.
Actually you are incorrect. First off natural selection works better with the belief that all animals were created and only the less fit died off. Lets start with the false assumption that an animal without all the parts working together. An animal like the woodpecker would only need to be a bird, with a slightly stronger beak. How is it that anti evolutionists can't accept that more than one adaptation can take place yet they can accept that a mythical creature with no proof exists. The beak and tongue did not have to evolve at the same time.

I counter your website with one of my own. I read yours, now please give me the courtesy of reading mine
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

Oh and you might want to actually READ the second one you posted. It counters the "proofs" against evolution quite well.

Jae Onasi
12-06-2007, 01:02 AM
Well, Rob, let's see. There's oh so many choices stating that salvation is absolutely _not_ tied to the act of baptism. Baptism is an outward expression and declaration of your faith (and in the case of infant baptism, the commitment to raise the child in the Christian faith).
And before you say that I'm taking things out of context, I've actually read the context around these verses. You may want to acquaint yourself with those sections as well. I've read through the entire Bible a number of times, and have had a couple college courses in Bible and theology and a couple of classes in ancient world history and the Middle East (to understand cultural background and context) in addition to the numerous books I've read. Feel free to say I don't really know exactly what the Bible teaches, but that won't make it true. I use the NIV version because that's the most scholarly of the translations.

Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household.

Romans 4:24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead

Romans 10:9-10 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Luke 7:50 Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (note that Christ did not tell her to go get baptized in order to be saved)

Luke 23:40-43 But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Christ did not say the thief had to be baptized to be saved. It'd be kind of tough anyway, what with the thief being nailed to a cross and all).

Acts 15:11 We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

Romans 10:13 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (not 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord and gets baptized)

Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (note again salvation is for everyone who believes, not for everyone who 'believes and is baptized'.)

John 3:16 as noted above

Comment on the verses you've quoted:

Your uncited verse is from Acts 2:38 "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This verse says a. repent and then b. be baptized, but baptism is never stated to be an additional requirement for salvation.

Matthew 3:6--this says nothing about salvation itself. It just says they confessed, then they got baptized. It does not say baptism is required for salvation.

Matthew 3:11--that's a comparison/contrast of baptism with water vs. the later baptism with the Holy Spirit.


In regards to demons being believers:
This is the verse I think you were wanting to quote:
James 2:19 "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." The Greek used here is pisteuo, which can mean both to think to be true/acknowledge a fact as well as to trust in God for saving faith (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4100&version=nas). Just because I believe in the existence of evil doesn't mean I'm committed to it.

Matthew 3:13 and 16--again, neither says anything about baptism being required for salvation

Mark 1:5--this also does not say that baptism was required for salvation. It simply says they got baptized after confessing their sins.

Mark 1:8 specifies how Christ/God will provide the Holy Spirit to believers, but again says nothing about baptism as a requirement for salvation.

Mark 16:16--belief is required for salvation, and later in that verse it specifically says lack of belief results in condemnation, not lack of belief coupled with lack of baptism. Since no where in this verse, indeed in the entire Bible, does it say that lack of baptism results in condemnation or lack/loss of salvation, I don't believe that baptism is required for salvation. It's important to Christianity, to be sure, and baptism serves as our outer expression of our faith. I don't want to minimize the importance of baptism. However, in example after example after example, people were told that their faith saved them or was counted as righteousness--the Old Testament prophets and leaders, the woman at the well, the woman with the alabaster vial, the thief on the cross, and so forth. No baptism was ever involved for them. Note in the verse that belief is required first and then baptism to demonstrate that faith to those around us.

Rogue Nine
12-06-2007, 01:13 AM
I would differ that we can infer what being a Pure Christian is by what the Bible says. Some people may interpret things differently, but usually it is to advance their own beliefs, and the passages they use are obviously misused. I think it tends to be very clear on what is right and wrong - it is inspired by God, after all, so it is His standard of Christianity. Anyone that follows something different to what the Bible says, is, sadly, wrong.
Right, so you're not 'interpreting things differently' from other people in this discussion and using your interpretation (or that of your particular faith) to advance your own beliefs?

Curious how this seems to be enough for you to dismiss it entirely. Rather subjective, don't you think?
If I was to follow the Bible as stringently as you seem to do, I would want to be sure what I'm reading is the bona-fide, 100%, honest-to-God truth. Why is it then, in all the Bibles I've found, this little proviso is written between Mark 16:8 and Mark 16:9...

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
Why don't they have it? Could it be that someone added it in after the fact? Sure it preaches a good message, but is it truly 'God-breathed'? If I relied on Biblical authority as much as you seem to do, I would want to be sure I'm relying on something that can be universally agreed upon.

But for argument's sake, let's say Mark 16:16 is a-ok. For someone who relies on Biblical authority as much as you do, you left out quite a bit!
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Emphasis mine. Huh. It doesn't say who ever does believe but isn't baptized will be condemned. Going on logic, there isn't an 'or' statement there to provide for baptism. Odd, since the first half of the sentence provides the 'and'. (Jae explains this so much better than I do. Love you Jae! <3)

Did John ever say that all you had to do was be baptized? If he did (which he didn't), he was alone among the other disciples.
Um, thanks for proving my point?

Because we aren't hanging from a cross about to die with no hope of surviving the day.
Cool, so there's a loophole to the whole baptism thing! I just have to be about to die and everything is peachy-keen! Awesome.

Kinda pigeonholes your whole 'belief + baptism = salvation' thing, though. :/

Achilles
12-06-2007, 01:56 AM
I'd love it if you show me this documented hard evidence. I believe that I pointed you to two very well documented examples as well as a third source where you could find additional information should you find the the others lacking. Surely that's more than sufficient? Also, it appears to be more evidence that you've provided for the god argument. *shrugs*

Oh, I agree. Simply saying that since "everything is so complex, it must be God" is rather weak. I think it is evidence for the existence of God, but I wouldn't use it as hard evidence since it is so fragile. Ok. The source of your contention then?

Again.... I love these answers. Tell me how you really meant if it I'm wrong.I believe I address my exact meaning the last response. Please feel free to let me know if any part is still unclear.

Needless to say, "one man being better than another" was not my intent. Just for future reference, I don't defend arguements that I don't make. I hope you can respect that.

Before I open up with it, would you kindly clarify what it is you are saying there is no evidence for? God, the Bible, Jesus.....? I'm sure you stated this somewhere already, but I'd like to know before I start spouting things that aren't really relevant to what you said.Well, surely there's evidence for the bible. I'm pretty sure I could find one in any bookstore. As for god or jesus, yes, I'm stating that there currently exists no evidence for either. If you'd like to see my specific argument regarding jesus, please feel free to visit this (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=177505) thread. I do appreciate your willingness to clarify my arguments before responding. Hopefully I've provided sufficient clarification.

Hence why I said it would only be useful to the individual. In scientific terms, it is merely useless data.I disagree. Clearly something happens. Something measurable. Hardly "useless data".

Extrapolations based on personal experience are not empyrically testable. I individually come down with the flu. Not empirically testable? My symptoms are consisent for all people with said affliction? Finding a treatment won't have benefit for others?

Granted, I'm using an extreme analogy, but it's essentially the same thing. Your "religious" experience may have been triggered by something other than what triggered mine, but that's like saying your flu is different from mine because you got your's on a Thursday at noon from a doorknob and I got mine on a Monday when someone sneezed. Our physiology is the same therefore the experience is essentially the same.

NOW if God were to reshape the rockies into a sign that said "God Was Here" I think that would be pretty clear evidence that a greater entity existed. However the proof of something that we cannot empyrically test through the five generally accepted senses, is near impossible. Yes, that might be one example of "sufficient evidence". If we could emperically rule out any other explanation other than a supernatural deity (named "god") then we could safely assume that god does exist. Then we could begin narrowing down whether any of our other assumptions about god (man, woman, cow, christian, muslim, hindu, etc) were true and if so, which ones.

Personally, I think we'd get stuck trying to rule out aliens, but that's just the skeptic in me.:)

I agree. Then again I'm not attempting to force the belief that God exists down your throat. Just that in MY experience, I have seen and felt things which I attribute to God(though whether it is YHWH I have not said, And I do not know if it is). Having intelligent debates with liberal christians is genuinely enjoyable. Thank you for the experience.

If your experience was what I had you might feel different. Then again you might not. For all I know it could have been a freak occurance, but it is what makes the most sense to me. I would argue that our experiences were probably very similar if not exactly the same. Different influences guided us down different paths, but that shared human experience didn't change.

Pure athiest as in being completely opposed to the idea of a supreme being existing at all. I call that "foolish". Interesting that we have different names for it :)

Being completely skeptical of anything to do with any religion.I call that "rational". Interesting that we have different names for it :)

Well, just making sure you stay on your toes and clarify your positions properly. It keeps the strawmen at bay :D Fair enough :D

Predestination is kinda like a fairly open ended game. You have a beginning, and an end. What you do in between those two points is your choice, but you still inevitably come to that end(kinda reminds me of the Yorrik lines from Hamlet haha). I respectfully disagree. If the outcome is known beforehand (predetermined) then the choices leading up to that end aren't choices at all. If god intends for you to be a serial killer and burn in hell, then you do not have free will and therefore control over your actions. You cannot have destiny and choice at the same time. You might be able to bolster an argument that will persuade me otherwise, but I have yet to see one.

Of course I have my issues with the bible itself. I think it is a great colection of stories, but whether it is the word of god, or an accurate recounting of god's actions on earth, I don't really believe that. I mean heck they just found evidence that it wasn't the Red sea, but it was a mistranslated REED sea. Well, hundreds of illiterate slaves hand-copying partial copies over hundreds of years and half a dozen languages before the task was taken up by partially literate scribes/monks with an agenda...what can you expect ;)

Thank goodness for the printing press which could accurately reproduce mass quantities of mangled texts for all time from that point thereafter.

On these here internets determining what one means is much more difficult than in person. I was merely asking for clarification. I admit it seemed to come off kinda "preachy" but with fundies about, you have to watch yourself.Hopefully, I was able to clarify. If not, please let me know.

Evolution... here we go. something i can debate.
Half correct, ahlf incorrect.
Yes, there is evolution today. In my bible it's called adaptation. as it says God gave the animals the ability to adapt, but they all go after their own kind. Please begin by explaining what "kind" is. What "kind" is a duckbill platypus? Would a wolf and a poodle be the same "kind"? How about a whale and elephant (both mammals)? Or a whale and dolphin (sea mammals)?

There are a lot of animals that couldn't have formed by evolution, including giraffes and woodpeckers.because of natural selection, they wouldn't be able to have evolved in the first place according to evolution, because through evolution, one part evovolves at a time, but they need all the parts that were said to have evolved in the first place, but then it doesn't work, and evolution can't apply there. This is true according to whom? Mutation can only occur in one trait at a time? This will be a huge relief to all the human babies that are born everyday with massive, wide-spread birth defects...going forward, of course. Please provide a source for your argument.

there's lots of other animals that poke big holes in the evolution thoery, ones i can't think of at the moment. (somebody can ya find something to help me prove this?) Please be sure to let us know just as soon as you remember what some of them are.

see, the problem is, most all scientists that study evolution seem to be athiests, and they don't want to disprove a theory they so greatly believe is true. Or it could be that all the people that are smart enough to be scientists eventually turn out to be atheists :D

PS: don't repeat what you just said to anyone at the discovery institute. They might take offense.

Every now and then in their studies, they'll coem accross an animal that couldn't have formed from evolution, and they decide to ignore it and not tell anyone about it, which leaves it to chrisitna scientists and the liek to hav eto dig deep to fidn those animals the evolutionists didn't want to mention. If they didn't tell anyone about it, then how do you know about them?

Humans need every part of their body, Appendix? Tonsils? Wisdom teeth? Check out "vestigal organs" when you get some free time.

and evolution won't work with apes to humans if natural selection is real, which it obviously is. So natural selection is real but evolution isn't? Interesting that it's normally natual selection that most creationists forget about, not random mutation.

Some parts humans have and vitally need apes don't have.For instance?

woodpeckers for one:
http://www.verticalthought.org/issues/vt13/evolution.htm Nothing here provides even a minor complication for the theory of evolution. The pastor did craft a nice article though.

and some other site that has soem stuff agaisnt evolution.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm You have to read the rebuttals too, my friend. ;)

Thanks to everyone for the replies.

RobQel-Droma
12-06-2007, 01:58 AM
snipped flaming/baiting/sarcastic comments. --Jae

Actually it isn't just believing, it is accepting Jesus as your savior. Demons are not able to do so. They are of another existence level. Therefore even if they ask forgiveness, they cannot be allowed back in.

Where did you find this out? :)

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

There's a nice brief wikipedia article about it.

Wikipedia?

There is an amazing amount of hard evidence for evolution on all scales. We see it every winter with the constant evolution of the Flu Virus and our attempt to inoculate ourselves against the new strain.

That's called adaption, not evolution. Note that the Flu Virus is still the Flu Virus.

The Peppered Moth is a pretty potent example that we have direct evidence of.

Wait, people are still using the Peppered Moth? I thought everyone understood about that by now...

The light-colored peppered moths, as it says, were originally the dominant strain of those moths in England, until the trees were covered in soot, making it easier for predators to spot them. Then, the light-colored moths started to get eaten, and the population died down. The dark peppered moths started growing in population - it wasn't evolution, both species existed at the same time. The light ones didn't turn into the dark ones; do the research, its true. One merely died down when predators found it easier to hunt them.

Also, you may want to read up on Transitional Fossils

So.... one or two fossils, and they say "the missing link!" How come, for instance, the whale-like one is suddenly a transitional fossil even though the only classification for that is that it is an amphibian and it is kinda like a whale in some respects? Is that all?

What do you say to this, then: they have found several species of animals (that were supposedly evolving at different times) in the same layer of soil. How does evolution explain that?

our so called "True Christianity" is your singular religion. I can guarantee you that nobody else follows your so called "True Christianity".

Many people believe what I do. Do you really expect to defend your statement?

Your Interpretation of Christianity is what you define as Christianity, thus by all means you are fully and completely saying:

"I am right, and everybody else is wrong."

Well, only one interpretation is going to be right. There's only one truth about this.

If what I believed was against the Bible, then I would be wrong. But I don't go against the Bible, and many people do.

I guarantee you that if you lined up 100 "True Christians", that you would get 100 different definitions of what Christianity is. And then you would simply state that they are all wrong in some way but you.

Wrong again. Do you really think that what the Bible says is so interpretation-dependent?

And even if you had a group that believed every last single thing you believe, then you have just proved that individuality does not exist. If anything, you have proved you follow a cult.

I have no idea what the heck you are trying to say here.

And even if everything you believe turns out to be right... Guess what? You are now dead and the only human soul in heaven. You believe you are singularly right and all other religions and people are wrong, so you must be the only person allowed true salvation. And even if there are others, you yourself would get the satisfaction of saying "Hahaha! I was right and all you idiots were wrong!"

You are now suggesting that I want people to burn in hell. I'm not going to comment.

From the time I spent in Christianity, I seem to remember that God has the final say in all of this. Not you.

You're quite right. In fact, I'll go listed to what He says about this. From the Bible, which is His Word. I'm not seeing anything that is contradictory to what I believe, so I think I'm good. If there was, I'd need to change some of my beliefs, since, after all God has the final say.

There is plenty of evidence, you just refuse to accept that it exists. We could present you with all the evidence in the world, and you would most probably reject it.

School taught evolution. The Television and Internet have pieces on it all over the place. The news even has specials on it.

No, I don't consider fossils found of two species "hard evidence" for evolution.

So, because I do not accept God and Jesus fully into my life, AND get baptized I will not be saved? So, I am to live with sin my entire life, and when I die I get thrown down to one of the layers of hel

In fact, more personal, why are you no longer a Christian? (or, if you are, why this attitude?)

And even if I follow Jesus and God my entire life, if I do not get baptized I don't get to join the private club?

Its what He says to do. You can ask Him about it when you die, I guess.

You make getting salvation sound like signing up for insurance. Do this and that, make sure you get this done, and keep within these limits for the rest of your known life. How is that any different than exchanging salvation for money? At least money for the church can be put to causes like orphanages and schools.

Believe, be baptized for the remission of your sins, and follow God.

Doesn't sound to complex to me.

An old man throwing water on you is nothing but an old man throwing water on you. I highly doubt a god is going to care if you got water splashed on you at one point in your life.

You deny that is part of what He says to do in the Bible?

Again, you can ask Him in Heaven. As for me, I'm going to do what He says.

Oh, silly Rogue Nine. You must remember:

Unless you get water thrown on you by an old guy you are not on god's radar. It doesn't matter how good or bad you were in life.

Do you know what baptism is? It is the remission of our sins. If we don't have that, we aren't "good" at all, no one is.

But... but... but

That would mean some lines in the bible would have to be wrong and contradictory to each other! There is no way that could be possible!

Listen. You cannot put the ENTIRE bible out for evidence of your claims and then say "Well, you know, that part isn't right... but the rest of it is!". That would mean that more parts of the bible would also have to be incorrect. Which means, by chance, the entire book could actually be wrong. Oh no! That means your so called "True Christianity" could also be wrong!

You have, again, proved my point in saying that you believe your interpretation of the bible is correct and everybody else's is wrong.

Er.... how? I'm not the one discarding parts of the Bible. I was wondering why Rogue Nine was discarding every verse I put forth to stand by one single verse that doesn't even explicitly say that you don't have to be baptized. I accept that verse.... that doesn't mean anything. The verse doesn't say "all who believe, even if they aren't baptized"....

Again, that proves my point that you think you yourself are right and everybody else is wrong.


Fine. You claim that the Bible is not right? Because all I said was, anyone that doesn't follow the Bible is wrong. Do you disagree? I thought you claimed to be a Christian at one point?

Now,...while some of us consider the fact that there are many belief systems and that if you were 100% right in your beliefs, you would be God.

No, I would just be following what God says.


I do not consider my opinion right. My opinion is simply another opinion.

So... you believe something that you don't consider correct? What?

But I do not hold it over other people. There are a limitless amount of religions, beliefs, and gods and I understand that if any of them were truly right, then everybody would follow it.

Yea, sure they would. All roads lead to Heaven, though, right!? I mean, since no one is right or wrong.

Oh, and on a final note for you... One last quote:
"I'd advise you to please not define Christianity to someone's statement (like this person's) especially when it does not seem that you really know exactly what the Bible teaches."

Follow what you preach before you tell other's how and what to believe.

Good Day.

Interesting. How exactly do I not know the Bible?

Rob-Qel-Droma are you part of a baptist church or something? The bible says that you have to believ ein Jesus to be saved , and baptism is optional, not required, but suggested. the verses asyign you must be batised to be saved of your sins are often misinterpretted, they actually shoudl mean that batism will clenase you of your sins, not save you. baptist teachings tedn to have a slight contradiction problem because the foudner of the baptist beliefs misunderstood those verses slightly. I have nothing agaisnt baptist churches or baptism itself however. and i want to warn you don't let true_avery bother you, she just likes to make fun of people and make them mad for her won amusement watching them get all mad about it.

I go to a "Church of Christ", which I guess is kind of a "non-denominational" Church, although it probably really is. I, however, do believe in baptism - if it does cleanse us of our sins, how is it optional? Wouldn't we be ugly to God if we were still carrying our sins around?

Lol, and True Avery's female? I didn't know that.
Right, so you're not 'interpreting things differently' from other people in this discussion and using your interpretation (or that of your particular faith) to advance your own beliefs?

Not that I'm aware of. Am I?

Um, thanks for proving my point?

Your welcome. What exactly did I do?

Cool, so there's a loophole to the whole baptism thing! I just have to be about to die and everything is peachy-keen! Awesome.

Kinda pigeonholes your whole 'belief + baptism = salvation' thing, though. :/

Well, babies, when they die, supposedly go to Heaven without believing, because they are innocent. Is that a loophole in yours?

@Jae - I'm not going to quote your whole post, since its kinda long, but... remember in Acts:

"...'What must we do to be saved?' They said. Peter replied, 'Repent, therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins'..."

Pretty definite if you ask me. He pretty much outlines what you have to do to be saved.

I believe that I pointed you to two very well documented examples as well as a third source where you could find additional information should you find the the others lacking. Surely that's more than sufficient? Also, it appears to be more evidence that you've provided for the god argument. *shrugs*

I don't recall that, but ET Warrior provided some. I think I responded earlier in this post.

Ok. The source of your contention then?

None.

I believe I address my exact meaning the last response. Please feel free to let me know if any part is still unclear.

Needless to say, "one man being better than another" was not my intent. Just for future reference, I don't defend arguements that I don't make. I hope you can respect that.

Is my logic wrong?

Well, surely there's evidence for the bible. I'm pretty sure I could find one in any bookstore.

Funny. :xp:

As for god or jesus, yes, I'm stating that there currently exists no evidence for either. If you'd like to see my specific argument regarding jesus, please feel free to visit this thread. I do appreciate your willingness to clarify my arguments before responding. Hopefully I've provided sufficient clarification.

Many early historians mention Jesus.

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day”

...just to name one. I could name more, if you want.

Achilles
12-06-2007, 02:16 AM
That's called adaption, not evolution. Different how?

Note that the Flu Virus is still the Flu Virus. Until it becomes something different like HIV or SARS.

Well, babies, when they die, supposedly go to Heaven without believing, because they are innocent. Is that a loophole in yours?

@Jae - I'm not going to quote your whole post, since its kinda long, but... remember in Acts:

"...'What must we do to be saved?' They said. Peter replied, 'Repent, therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins'..."

Pretty definite if you ask me. He pretty much outlines what you have to do to be saved. *Pops popcorn*

Evangelical fights are the best!

I don't recall that, but ET Warrior provided some. I think I responded earlier in this post. Glad that's cleared up then.

None.Oh, so you did that to meet some sort of word count then?

Is my logic wrong? I don't know. It was your argument so you tell me.

Many early historians mention Jesus.And?
P.S. I address this in the thread I referenced.

...just to name one. I could name more, if you want.Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. All his (contested) texts belie is a familiarity with the cult. Should a modern writing biography on David Koresh qualify as evidence for his divinity? The big difference here is that we actually have a historical record for someone named David Koresh, so...

Rogue Nine
12-06-2007, 02:24 AM
Not that I'm aware of. Am I?
You mean to tell me that your interpretation is the end-all to how the Good Book should be read? That one must either read it the way you read it, or else one is 'not doing it right'?

Your welcome. What exactly did I do?
You said 'Did John ever say that all you had to do was be baptized? If he did (which he didn't), he was alone among the other disciples.' I quote John 3:16, which stated that whoever believes in Jesus will have everlasting life. John doesn't mention baptism at all in that verse. Soooo...I dunno, really. You really didn't refute my point. :S


Well, babies, when they die, supposedly go to Heaven without believing, because they are innocent.
The Bible doesn't say they do; it makes no provisos for children And if we're going on what the Bible says (your stringent interpretation), then we are all born into sin and must come to Christ and be baptized before we can be saved. Therefore, since babies have neither been saved nor baptized, they're going to hell.

The whole reason I brought up the example of the thief on the cross is to point out how some people were never baptized, yet they were seemingly given a free pass to Heaven (Jae points out many of these nicely). How does your 'belief + baptism or else no salvation' doctrine reconcile that?

And why do you skip over those middle points I made? I think they're rather relevant...

@Jae - I'm not going to quote your whole post, since its kinda long, but... remember in Acts:

"...'What must we do to be saved?' They said. Peter replied, 'Repent, therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins'..."

Pretty definite if you ask me. He pretty much outlines what you have to do to be saved.
Funny how you almost completely ignore the one post which really throttles your arguments for baptism being a part of salvation.

Oh, and you like leaving out stuff too. Right before Acts 2:38...
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
They do not ask 'how do we get saved?' It's pedantic, I know, but you like to take the Bible at face value, so...

However, later in Acts, someone (shock!) actually does ask how they can get saved! The jailer!
The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."
Lookit that, no mention of baptism at all. Huh.

(Oh, and just so we're clear, is the baptism you're talking about the physical act of sprinkling/immersing in water or the spiritual 'Baptism of the Spirit'? You can have the latter without the former.)

Jae Onasi
12-06-2007, 02:36 AM
@Jae - I'm not going to quote your whole post, since its kinda long, but... remember in Acts:

"...'What must we do to be saved?' They said. Peter replied, 'Repent, therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins'..."

Pretty definite if you ask me. He pretty much outlines what you have to do to be saved.

Acts 2:38 to be specific. The NIV translation reads "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Again, it does not specifically say that baptism is required for salvation itself. It enjoins believers to be baptized, but does not say that baptism itself is needed for salvation. I looked this verse up in my Hebrew-Greek Keyword study Bible, and here's what it had to say about this verse:
The main verb in this verse is metanoesate, which means 'repent'. This refers to that initial repentance of a sinner unto salvation. The verb translated 'to be baptized' is in the aorist passive imperative of baptizo, which means that it does not have the same force as the direct command to "repent". The preposition "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins" is the Greek word eis, "unto". It signifies "for (or unto) the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins." This same preposition is used in 1 Corinthians 10:2 in the phrase "they were all baptized into (eis) Moses." signifying that the Israelites were identified with the work and ministry of Moses. Repentence is something between an individual and God, while baptism is intended to be a testimony to others.

You completely ignore all the verses I quoted that specifically say that one is saved through faith, period. There is nothing in the Bible saying specifically that baptism is required for salvation, and there are plenty that say salvation happens through faith without baptism being specifically required. I'm sorry if that rocks your world, but that's the way the Bible reads.

Tommycat
12-06-2007, 03:46 AM
I disagree. Clearly something happens. Something measurable. Hardly "useless data".

What I mean is that a singular non-repeatable instance can be chalked up to being an anomaly. Testing it is impossible as it only occured once. Yet was sufficient to meet my needs.
I respectfully disagree. If the outcome is known beforehand (predetermined) then the choices leading up to that end aren't choices at all. If god intends for you to be a serial killer and burn in hell, then you do not have free will and therefore control over your actions. You cannot have destiny and choice at the same time. You might be able to bolster an argument that will persuade me otherwise, but I have yet to see one.
Well in essence he may intend for me to be an artist and I choose the serial killer path. He may try to steer me away from that path, but if I continue to turn away from Him, then I have given him no alternative but to place me on the path to hell. You can have a predetermined good and predetermined bad outcome and still have it be destiny(Thinking of Bindu and the swirling destiny haha). You can let God decide everything for you, but then you have no control over how it happens. You can take full control of it and maybe screw it up. Or you can take some control but ask God for guidance, and hope you get his instructions right. The more control you take the more likely it is that you will fall off the path he has determined for you.

True_Avery
12-06-2007, 04:00 AM
snipped flaming/baiting comments
That's called adaption, not evolution. Note that the Flu Virus is still the Flu Virus.
Evolution is organisms changing over periods of time to adapt to their environment. Adaption -is- evolution.

Er..... what?
I'll say it again:

Interpretation is how people make their religious and spiritual beliefs. You read the Bible, and you take it as you do.

Oh really. I'm happy to say that you are 100%, dead-on, wrong. No, many people believe what I do. Do you really expect to defend your statement?
Yes, because religious beliefs are based on interpretation of what you are given. You read the bible, and thus you take the information how you see fit. That is why opinions within christianity differ.

Sure, show me someon who believes everything you do 100%, down to the last spec. If they differ in ANYTHING at all, then they have intepreted something differently than you, and this can be called another religion.

Well, only one interpretation is going to be right. There's only one truth about this.

If what I believed was against the Bible, then I would be wrong. But I don't go against the Bible, and many people do.
You are correct. Only one interpretation is right, to you. Yours. You read the bible, and you built your beliefs on what you assume is right.

Right... what the Bible actually says has nothing to do with it.
What the bible says has EVERYTHING to do with it. People take the information and build their beliefs off of it. Your opinion on certain sections of the bible will differ from others. That does not make them wrong, it makes it a differing opinion.

Again, you go on to prove that you believe only you are correct.

How humerous. You are now suggesting that I want people to burn in hell. I'm not going to comment;
Fine, then what does happen to those humans that do not believe 100% everything that you do? Salvation is salvation, and by your definition only a select few get it.


I have no idea what the heck you are trying to say here.
If there were truly people that held your exact religious beliefs, then there would not be individual opinions. There would just be clones of you. Groups of people that are acused of believing highly in the same thing are usually refered to as being part of a cult. No individuality. Clones of eachother.

Wrong again. Do you really think that what the Bible says is so interpretation-dependent?
There are a group of people in this thread arguing differing interpretations of the bible.

You deny that there are absolute truths about God? Everyone can't be different, and right.
Oh, yes they can. You just refuse to believe that someone other than yourself could actually be right. That would mean, to some degree, that your own beliefs could be seen as "Wrong".
You're quite right. In fact, I'll go listed to what He says about this. From the Bible, which is His Word. I'm not seeing anything that is contradictory to what I believe, so I think I'm good. If there was, I'd need to change some of my beliefs, since, after all God has the final say.
Not really. You don't actually know what God says. You can read from a book. A book that was written by man, and a bunch of people who think they knew the actual word of a power of which humans shouldn't have any comphrehension of.

Again, you have taken your interpretation of the bible and put it as absolute truth. Anybody who believes otherwise, even if they are of the same religion, is dead wrong.

I have no problem with what you believe, but you want to attack me for thinking I'm right about God. I'm sorry, its not my problem. I'm just doing what God says in the Bible.

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with what I believe, hmmm?
You are doing what the bible says. You have no idea what a God truly says, because the bible was written by religious humans. Wether god truly spoke through them or not is debatable, and there is no answer until we are dead I guess. But until then, neither of us can be right because you have not met god. Ever.

[RobQel-Droma] "I think that the bus sucks."

There, I wrote something with your name. If you were unaware of it being posts, and I managed to use your account to post that, people would believe that you said it. But you didn't. I posted it for you. Regardless, until you somehow prove that it was not you, people will believe it was you.

The same can be said for the bible. Ever consider that thousands of years ago, religious people may have just written the bible and called it god's word? If they did, then you are following the words of humans, not god. It was in human language, on paper. Prove to me that god really spoke through them and wrote this book.

Oh yeah. You can't. Because you are assuming you know what god is saying, but you simply repeat what the bible says. Until I hear it from god, the ability for religion to be named absolutely true is still up in the air for me. I have no real proof that the bible was not written by god, and I have no proof that it was.



Would you change your views no matter what I said?
I believe that religion can neither be proven, or disproven until I die. Either I disapear from existance, or I meet a god. I will question the god if that happens, and make my decision from there. Until then, neither science or religion has my side.

Yes. In fact, more personal, why are you no longer a Christian? (or, if you are, why this attitude?)
I am in-between all of this. I belong to no religion, but I don't belong to the science side of this either. I studied into religion, mostly christianity, as a child and learned quite early that there were many differing opinions and it would be wrong to say I knew the true answers to the universe.

Also, I stopped believing in fairy tales when I was 8.

Its what He says to do. You can ask Him about it when you die, I guess.
Well, because I am going to hell, I guess I'll miss the chance. Not missing much. I'm happy living as I am now, and I don't see how knowing the ACTUAL answers of life will improve anything from down there.

But... no. I'd rather have you come down to hell and explain this all to me when you are dead and up in heaven. You can either explain to me how right you were, and I'll achnoloedge how right you were... or you can explain to me why your god is an eight armed elephant and how off you were during life.

Believe, be baptized for the remission of your sins, and follow God.

Doesn't sound to complex to me.
I believe that humans cannot prove this to me. I believe having water splashed on me fixes nothing. And I will follow god when I meet god. Not selfish, childish, human beliefs.

It isn't complex is it? Thats why it is able to suck so many people into believing it. A simple, easy way to get salvation after death because we humans fear what is after death more than anything in existance. Knowing we will be saved makes death a comforting thought.

You deny that is part of what He says to do in the Bible?

Again, you can ask Him in Heaven. As for me, I'm going to do what He says.
I believe it is what humans say to do in the bible. I don't think you have the slightest clue what god actually wants.

But, I guess we'll find out after death wont we? So, your beliefs cannot be proved 100% until after we are dead... Now who is the one who cannot debate?

Ok, whatever....
Rub it off if you want. I don't expect to be praised when I say I am right over everybody else... Why should you?

Do you know what baptism is? It is the remission of our sins. If we don't have that, we aren't "good" at all, no one is. I find your claim to be somehow close to perfection childish.
Of course I know what baptism is. I just fail to see how H20, WATER, LIQUID, is a remission of our sins. And, by saying that, you have just called me and a number of people "bad".

Because, after all, I am going to hell anyway for not getting baptised. I don't see why life matters anymore at this point...

Give me a break. I am not going to hell for not getting splashed with some damn water.

Er.... how? I'm not the one discarding parts of the Bible. I was wondering why Rogue Nine was discarding every verse I put forth to stand by one single verse that doesn't even explicitly say that you don't have to be baptized. I accept that verse.... that doesn't mean anything. The verse doesn't say "all who believe, even if they aren't baptized"....
It is called interpretation. He reads it and understands it differently than you, but you read the same book. Now, what if he is right and you are wrong? That thought ever cross your mind?

I have yet to see any reasoning behind why you are right but "The book says it" and "You'll find out I am right when you die." Neither one are valid arguements, because one is a mass produced book that can be altered, and has been written by man, and your other point can only be proved once we are dead.


Fine. You claim that the Bible is not right? Because all I said was, anyone that doesn't follow the Bible is wrong. Do you disagree? I thought you claimed to be a Christian at one point?

Exactly. You claim you are correct, and everybody that doesn't follow your little book to be dead wrong and lacking salvation. So yes, I do disagree with your logic. I grew up as a child in a christian family, and went to church, but I realized that with the huge amount of religions in the world that mine could not possibly be the 100% way to go. I am not arrogant enough to assume that my belief system is the only correct one in all of creation.


Yea, sure they would. All roads lead to Heaven, though, right!? I mean, since no one is right or wrong.
It is more comforting than your system, which picks out non-believers and heretics. I, sadly, am not someone who assumes I know the vast truths of the universe. I have never met god, and probably never will. You have not met god, and probably never will.

The difference between us is that I am waiting for truth from the being who has the -actual- answers, if that being even exists. You assume you already know them. And, if you are right, I never will know those truths. Ever. And I am comfortable living like that for eternity.

But, if you sleep better at night assuming that there are definitive rights and wrong in the world, then you go ahead and do that. I'll live my life in the gray, and, as you say, I guess we'll find out when it no longer matters: When we die. And if God tells me I did wrong, I'll give god the finger before he takes away my free will and sends me to hell... you know, like any nice dictator would do.

I go to a "Church of Christ", which I guess is kind of a "non-denominational" Church, although it probably really is. I, however, do believe in baptism - if it does cleanse us of our sins, how is it optional? Wouldn't we be ugly to God if we were still carrying our sins around?
It seems to be pretty optional. I don't do it, and have not done it. Many people don't do it, ever. And I do not believe it is gods place to say who is ugly and who is not. God is not worthy of my attention if that is how a god thinks. If that sends me to hell, then hey... I'll go out saying "I knew I was right about you!"

Many early historians mention Jesus.
Many early historians also said the earth was flat, and that it was once wiped clean by a flood.. Yet somehow all of the animals of the world lived within walking distance of Noah, and 80 million different species of animal fit onto a wooden arc. Not everything early historians say can be applied to modern day knowledge of physics and science.

So... you believe something that you don't consider correct? What?
Yep. I do not believe my outlook on life is the correct one. Out of the billions of opinions out there, I realize that mine is only 1 of them. You may firmly believe you are the correct one out of those billions, and that is indeed a heavy stance to take. I'll go ahead and keep accepting that I am not ever truly right or wrong on matters of opinion and morals.

That might be hard for you to understand. Most people I find see it just as silly as I see your beliefs. But thats why I like my system. Everybody seems to believe themselves right in their opinion, so why not assume that right and wrong are opinion based. I have my own theories on what is right and wrong, and you have yours, and the guy over there has his.

The difference between you and me is that I see another opinion in them, another world, another worldveiw, and another sense of good and evil. You see someone that is downright wrong.

I should, by my own logic, think of you the same but I have trouble accepting people who believe they are the only one correct out of billions of humans. That logic leads to wars, death, destruction, and chaos. It lead to the Nazis. To the churches destruction of the south american native population. It lead to the cold war. It lead to world war 1 and 2. I do not believe that putting your opinion above all other opinions and calling it the absolute is anything less than selfish, arrogant, and childish.

I feel as though my opinion matters more, but when I look at the big picture I realize that in less than 100 years I will be dead and my beliefs will go with me. What lies beyond that I could care less, but what happens on earth is what I care about. If god wants to send me to hell for that, then I hope he sends me down with a bang because I refuse to believe in something that wont in turn believe in me and believe in everything I feel I can stand for. I will follow a free-thinker, not a dictator.

So yes: I believe something that I don't consider correct.

Lol, and True Avery's female? I didn't know that.
Yes, I am of the female species.

You mean to tell me that your interpretation is the end-all to how the Good Book should be read? That one must either read it the way you read it, or else one is 'not doing it right'?
Exactly. It is his way, or to hell you go. He, and apparently others, are the only ones who truly know how to read the bible. Everybody else is just commiting blasphemy.
Well, babies, when they die, supposedly go to Heaven without believing, because they are innocent.
I don't believe. Can I have free salvation too? I guess atheists get a free ride as well. Innocent is a term that is thrown around all too often I think. Children hit each other, bite each other, break things, scream, disobey. They are just mini versions of adults, but with less vocabulary. When does god decide to begin judging children? When they are 18? When they are 13? When they "understand" "right" and "wrong"?

Although, I guess I do not understand why babies are so important and special. I don't want any, and don't plan on having any. Guess it must be a love thing. Personally I find them disgusting :p

Tommycat
12-06-2007, 08:45 AM
Personally I don't believe in hell. I think that god lets our decisions in life affect our afterlife. I mean to some the idea of angels singing, and basking in the glow of god would be hell. To others being surrounded by heavy metal fire and brimstone might be heaven(well maybe not the brimstone, but I dig heavy metal music and fire is warm haha). Some find pain pleasurable, others not so much, so to me it makes more sense that a god that loves his children(us) wouldn't want to destroy us, but would rather give us heaven in our own way. I would certainly not like to be sitting around with a bunch of Episcapalians. I'd rather be hanging out with the metalheads haha.

As for children, True_Avery, it'll hit you one day. If not, then the Catholics can have your share.

Jae Onasi
12-06-2007, 10:58 AM
The flaming/baiting is getting out of control. RobQel-Droma and True_Avery, this is your public warning not to flame/bait any further in this thread and indeed on LF. I am slowly pruning out all the crap that you two have been throwing at each other. Tone it down. Neither of you need to be using sarcasm, you can write to each other with respect, or at least without being rude. If you can't do that, then don't respond at all. I will simply delete sarcastic/rude posts from here on because pruning takes an inordinate amount of time. If you don't want entire posts deleted, word them without the sarcasm.

jmac7142, stay on topic and avoid trolling/baiting.

Everyone--I'm seriously thinking of closing this thread if the level of sniping/flaming/baiting continues. There's no reason we can't write to each other with some level of respect. There are many different people here from many different cultures, and you can disagree without being rude. You can also learn some really fascinating things if you're willing to at least listen to someone who has a different viewpoint.

Ray Jones
12-06-2007, 11:45 AM
Although, I guess I do not understand why babies are so important and special.But even I do understand that! (A) They are so important because, have you ever tried to give birth to a fully grown, adult human?? And (B) the are so speshul because, they can make Niner feel safe, and also, they have small hands and grab your nose!! ^^

Achilles
12-06-2007, 11:58 AM
What I mean is that a singular non-repeatable instance can be chalked up to being an anomaly. Testing it is impossible as it only occured once. Yet was sufficient to meet my needs. Based on our recent PM exchange, I feel comfortable stating that you and I are both approaching this from completely different points of view. I'm referring to the "holy ghost" experience that most people refer to when they reference "a spiritual experience". You're talking about something completely different. Needless to say, I'm glad we cleared that up. :)

Without going into detail though, I do disagree that your experience can't be tested. We can take it back to PM at this point if you would like for me explain myself further. Thanks for your response.

Well in essence he may intend for me to be an artist and I choose the serial killer path. He may try to steer me away from that path, but if I continue to turn away from Him, then I have given him no alternative but to place me on the path to hell. You can have a predetermined good and predetermined bad outcome and still have it be destiny(Thinking of Bindu and the swirling destiny haha). That's not predestination, that's consequences/rewards. If I tell my children that I will give them each $5 for doing their chores or ground them for a weekend if they don't, we cannot say that they were predestined to be grounded for the weekend when they make the choice not to do their chores.

This goes back to the earlier statement (I forget who made it) that god puts some people here knowing that they won't make it to heaven. That's predestination, and if it's true, then no matter what that poor sap does, he isn't going to make it. He has no choice, no option, no menu of selections. At the end of the day, he's going to hell. Doesn't sound like a loving god to me.

Unless of course, predestination doesn't exist (cue: free will). Then we have to begin questioning god's omniscience and his omnipotence. Creating a creature that he can't control which has future he cannot see is kinda like the old question about god creating a rock too heavy for him to lift.

You can let God decide everything for you, but then you have no control over how it happens. You can take full control of it and maybe screw it up. Or you can take some control but ask God for guidance, and hope you get his instructions right. The more control you take the more likely it is that you will fall off the path he has determined for you.With considerable respect, it really sounds as though you're grasping at straws here ;)

Personally, I simply choose to acknowledge that the god hypothesis doesn't make much sense and live my life accordingly.

Take care!

Darth InSidious
12-06-2007, 12:42 PM
Since I'm probably going to have to launch the good ship "Defending the Catholic Church as the One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church", should I start a new thread?

ET Warrior
12-06-2007, 01:00 PM
Wikipedia?Not always the most reliable of sources, but there are external links to other documents if you truly feel that this article is complete hogwash (which it is not).

That's called adaption, not evolution. Note that the Flu Virus is still the Flu Virus.The common misconception about evolution is that adaptation and evolution are somehow different things. Adaptation is evolution on a small enough time scale for us to observe it. The Flu virus manages to mutate significantly enough that our bodies are not prepared for it in a single year. Evolution takes millions of years.

Wait, people are still using the Peppered Moth? I thought everyone understood about that by now...A lot of people do understand that by now. The peppered moths give us an example of Natural Selection in action, as opposed to adaptation or evolution. However, it is the combination of the two things that gives us evolution by natural selection, and I provided you with examples of both occurring on even a very small time scale.

So.... one or two fossils, and they say "the missing link!" How come, for instance, the whale-like one is suddenly a transitional fossil even though the only classification for that is that it is an amphibian The article I linked you to was a basic example.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
There you will find a much more complete documentation of transitional fossils that have been found. They are transitional fossils because they demonstrate slight changes in traits that would have to exist for the eventual evolution of the species we see today from the species that used to exist. The fact that we continue to find more and more intermediary steps only cements the logic that evolution by natural selection is completely true.

What do you say to this, then: they have found several species of animals (that were supposedly evolving at different times) in the same layer of soil. How does evolution explain that?Source? Not that it can't necessarily be true, but I'd like a specific example.

MJ-W4
12-06-2007, 01:32 PM
I believe the most important thing for all of us, regardless of our individual beliefs and opinions, is TOLERANCE. There is a notable difference between having a belief or an opinion of one's own and forcing that belief or opinion onto others.
To quote an ancient Greek saying: 'Oida ouden eidos' - 'I know I know nothing.'

mimartin
12-06-2007, 01:57 PM
Some people may interpret things differently, but usually it is to advance their own beliefs, and the passages they use are obviously misused. I think it tends to be very clear on what is right and wrong - it is inspired by God, after all, so it is His standard of Christianity. Anyone that follows something different to what the Bible says, is, sadly, wrong.I would agree churches and people can misinterpret the Bible to advance their own beliefs. Can they also interpret it differently for their own needs? Example: Say I am having problems in my life and contemplating suicide, murder or whatever. I turn to the Bible for answers to my problems. If I find a passage, a verse that helps me though this time even if I completely misinterpret it meaning is that wrong? I believe when open to the Holy Spirit we are allowed to gain insight into the Bible. The Bible to me is a handbook for living my life and not an instrument of oppression.

I also do not believe God is arrogant or vengeful. I believe God is love and loved us enough to allow his own son to be tortured and murdered by mortal man. I can’t see him turning people away just because we did not follow the rules of a church or because we are not smart enough to follow the true meaning of a book written 2000 years ago by men. A book was translated to different languages by men. Scholars argue about what different words within the Bible meant 2000 years-ago compared to what their contemporary meaning how is some dumb Texan suppose to know the true meaning? Is God going to punish me for my misinterpretation?

Most of us practice the same religion of our family. Is God going to punish me because I was not born to one of your “pure” Christian households? Why would God put me in such a household? Even though I follow his word and my church’s teaching? Even if I ask God for his forgiveness of my sins?

This is why I don’t like getting involved in a Religious discussion. This is way too personal, but I messed up by getting involved in the first place. Just a side note this is what I believe I’m not in any shape or form saying it is right. I just saying this is how I get through life.

Achilles I gave you a few gopher balls here and in keeping with a baseball analogy the ten run rule is in effect. :D

I believe the most important thing for all of us, regardless of our individual beliefs and opinions, is TOLERANCE. Agreed, and if we are unwilling to give tolerance and respect why should we expect tolerance and respect in return.

Achilles
12-06-2007, 02:19 PM
I believe the most important thing for all of us, regardless of our individual beliefs and opinions, is TOLERANCE. To split hairs for just a moment, I've always taken issue with the word "tolerance" being used in this way. "Tolerance" implies permissiveness, where one viewpoint allows another to exist, whereas I think "acceptance" allows all viewpoints to co-exist equally.

Unfortunately though, the truth is that some ideas are simply unacceptable. The idea that adults should be allowed to abuse children is unacceptable to most rational people. The idea that neighbors should be allowed to enslave and sell one another is unacceptable for most rational people. That some sort of exception should be made for one particular flavor of irrational belief is unacceptable for most rational people.

So, yes, I do agree that acceptance is important, however I only think it should be applied in situations where it is rational to do so (such as cultural diversity, etc).

There is a notable difference between having a belief or an opinion of one's own and forcing that belief or opinion onto others. Absolutely.

I don't think that is the same thing as having said beliefs open to discussion.

To quote an ancient Greek saying: 'Oida ouden eidos' - 'I know I know nothing.'I think there is a lot of wisdom in those words. Unfortunately, religion does not permit such a worldview, because there is an answer for everything and the answer is always "god" (except for when it's "jesus" or "satan"). So the whole, "I know that I know nothing" idea is DOA for those that hold a religious faith (generally speaking).

Thanks for your post and welcome to the discussion.

MJ-W4
12-06-2007, 03:43 PM
To split hairs for just a moment...

--- snip ---

Thanks for your post and welcome to the discussion.Thank you for your kind welcome. :)
To mend hairs, I am sorry not to have been clearer. When I use 'tolerance', I use it in the very meaning you gave for 'acceptance'. To me, tolerance has nothing to with permissiveness towards crime, it is my preferred term for openmindedness, to listen to others and to try and see through their eyes.

In my life, I have been to many parts of the world and met with many different people, cultures and religions. Looking back, people (like you and me, as opposed to governments or any other type of institution) around the world seem to share one common desire regardless of origin, country, religion or favourite lunchtime snack: Everybody wants to lead their lives in peace.

The thing I've learnt for myself is that sometimes, our hearts have more wisdom than all the books in the world. In every culture or religion I've come across, there is always a 'personal moral institution', something that tells us if what we're doing is right or wrong. This 'personal moral institution' is sometimes attributed to a god or deity, or even a philosophy, and it basically says 'harm no-one so that you may suffer no harm from others.'
Having seen so much, and all to the same ends, I dare not put any single one higher than another.

Prime
12-07-2007, 06:50 PM
It is a strong argument against something, however. It should not be the only one, but still....

And seriously, do you believe that all life on this Earth is as complex as a set of 52 cards? Or even one in a million? It is astronomically greater; I'm not even sure if it could be computed. I'm not saying that is the only reason I believe in Creation, but I think you underestimated a little.Of course not. But the point remains: improbable by no means equals impossible. Again, this happens all the time in all sorts of systems. The card example is just a simplified example. Take the most extreme example that you like. The odds of getting exactly that can be beyond imagining. But you can still get it.

Also, the odds of actually getting a certain combination are lowered if you increase the number of attempts. And the number of attempts can be pretty high over the course of millions of years. We see variations in bacteria that become resistant to anti-bioticts over the past few decades, so they have obviously changed their structure over that time. How much greater can changes be when that few decades is expanded to many, many, millenia?

Secondly, if you are arguing then from the point of evolution, you must understand that random mutations aren't good things. They're bad. In fact, according to Darwin's own law of natural selection, it would weed out those who have mutations because they wouldn't be able to survive. Take any kind of system in the human body. It would be so complex, and each part would depend so much on the other, that it would all have to coexist at the same time. The vast majority of mutations are bad, yes. And they will be detrimental, and likely lead to the dead of the being. But the very small minority turn out to be beneficial. Typically, they are the only ones that are passed on.

Each stage and piece, however complex, has be functional on its own.

Which is not what, I hope, any Christian is doing. But let me point out that science has agreed/failed to destroy God for thousands of years. Hmmm, none of my science classes had a course in attempting to destroy God. That is just how certain religions express it when they feel science contradicts their ideas.

Not trying to say, well, "that must mean that 'Goddunit'", but you get my point. In fact, Christianity and the Bible have even had some things about the nature of the Earth and the Universe that took science a very, very long time to accept.No doubt they are right in certain cases. But how did they reach those conclusions? Not by actually figuring out and observing the answer.

Rogue Nine
12-08-2007, 12:31 AM
Demons believe in one God. They don't believe (I wouldn't think) Jesus is their Savior. Bit of a difference there.

And way to go with completely ignoring my post! And most of Jae's too!

Sorry, but I don't recall any of your verses explicitly saying: You don't have to be baptized to be saved.
There aren't any that say that you do!

Allow me to use a spot of logic here. Someone once said in this thread (or another, I can't be arsed to remember which), that the Bible does not contradict itself because if it were to, then that would mean that God's Word is not right or perfect or something. Based off of that, I present to you...

John 3:36 - "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life..."
Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..."

Using simple logic:

John 3:36
IF you believe in Jesus,
THEN you will have eternal life (be saved).

Mark 16:16
IF you believe (in Jesus)
AND you are baptized,
THEN you will be saved (have eternal life).

If Mark's statement is to be held true, then it contradicts dozens upon dozens of verses (John 3:36 being the immediate example) across the New Testament that refer to only believing in Jesus as the criteria for salvation. If it is a requirement for salvation, then why is it mentioned so few times? I even quoted a passage above where someone asks Paul and Silas point-blank "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They respond with "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." (Acts 16:30-31) If baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, then why didn't they tell the jailer so? Surely it is upon Paul and Silas to preach the Good Word to all, but by not specifying that one must be baptized to be saved, they could have potentially doomed thousands of souls who gave their lives to Jesus but didn't get baptized! As a result, those unbaptized souls are now languishing in Hell, all because Paul and Silas forgot to tell them to get baptized!

Several passages point out that if one does not believe in Jesus, then one cannot be saved. Hell, even the rest of Mark 16:16 points that out: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." This is how we know that believing in Jesus as Savior is an absolute, irrevocable requirement for salvation.

However, there is no such proviso made for baptism. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say 'if you are not baptized, then you cannot be saved' and it is fallacious to assume so, because we cannot assume that just because one statement is true, the negation of it is also true, unless it is specifically stated (as with the above verse).

Let's take your argument: "Sorry, but I don't recall any of your verses explicitly saying: You don't have to be baptized to be saved." By saying this, you assume the negation of your statement ('You do have to be baptized to be saved') to be true. Time for some more handy dandly logic tools!

Let J = I believe Jesus is my Savior.
Let B = I am baptized.
Let S = I am saved.

The following statements are all true:
J ∧ B ⊃ S - "I believe Jesus is my Savior AND I am baptized THEREFORE I am saved." (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)
J ⊃ S - "I believe Jesus is my Savior THEREFORE I am saved." (John 3:16, numerous other verses in the New Testament)
~J ⊃ ~S - "I do NOT believe Jesus is my Savior THEREFORE I am NOT saved." (Mark 16:16, numerous other verses in the New Testament)

With what you stated above, you want to prove ~B ⊃ ~S or "I am NOT baptized THEREFORE I am NOT saved" and you cannot do that, simply based on the above criteria, because it does not make logical sense. In the same vein, you cannot assume B ⊃ S ('I am baptized, THEREFORE I am saved') to be true either!

I'm pretty sure Achilles or any of the other logical minded people will agree with me (in my application of logic, if not the message behind the statements. xD)

Achilles
12-08-2007, 12:46 AM
I'm pretty sure Achilles or any of the other logical minded people will agree with me (in my application of logic, if not the message behind the statements. xD) My continued opinion (which I think is more than supported by the exchange in this thread) is that holy texts are entirely open to interpretation, largely in thanks to contradictory information contained therein. Anyone that does not recognize this has not read their holy text and anyone that does not accept it is not being honest with themselves.

Thank you for inviting me to comment! :)

MJ-W4
12-08-2007, 03:03 AM
With what you stated above, you want to prove ~B ⊃ ~S or "I am NOT baptized THEREFORE I am NOT saved" and you cannot do that, simply based on the above criteria, because it does not make logical sense. In the same vein, you cannot assume B ⊃ S ('I am baptized, THEREFORE I am saved') to be true either!

I'm pretty sure Achilles or any of the other logical minded people will agree with me (in my application of logic, if not the message behind the statements. xD)Very well put and logical, too. Thumbs up. :cheers:

Darth InSidious
12-08-2007, 12:58 PM
[Tried to delete my previous post, but couldn't. I've decided not to open a new thread for now...If a mod want's to move the posts, though, that would also seem like a good idea...]

No. Do you need a family tree? There was no Bible that defined Christianity, there was no proto-Christianity from which Catholics splintered from. The name "Roman Catholic" was used to denote adherence to Roman authority and to distinguish itself from the Protestantism.

To put it another way: Protestantism splintered from the Church. In fact, I believe the Roman epithet was first used after the Great Schism with the Orthodox of the Nicaean Crede, and more specifically after the rift became almost irreconcilable, when Bruno put a Bull of Excommunication upon the high altar of Hagia Sofia some time c.1000 AD, as I recall…


Catholicism is in no way chrisitinity. for one, it is much more rediculous. It is a corrupted version of pure christinity, whoever started catholicism obviously didn't read his bible very well. the same for mormonism. those religions based off of chrisianity are rediculous.
Rubbish. Martin Luther, on the other hand, read some deliberate mistranslations, from the most unreliable Greek texts, and jumped to conclusions. And you need to learn to spell “Christianity”. Furthermore, “Christianity”, “Mormonism” and “Catholicism” are all proper nouns. J


*cough* Er, no it's not. [re: Catholicism is Christianity]
Um, that's a very interesting way to define a religion. Do you even know anything about what Catholicism teaches?
Just a bit. I happen to be a practicing Catholic.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Peter was never the first pope. Catholicism believes that, but Christianity never has.
Define ‘Christianity’.

“You are Peter, and on this rock I shall build my Church.”

And before you bring up the possible differences between “petra” and “petron”, in the first place, words indicate differences in contextual meaning by altering their endings in Greek; secondly, the possible differences in meaning were almost indistinguishable by the first century - in Koiné at least; third, Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic word closest in meaning to ‘petron’ is ‘kepha’ - which means a large rock, not pebble.

In fact, the core of Christianity and its books were mostly estabilished before the Roman Catholic church came along. I'd ask you to do some research yourself, my friend.
Likewise! For example, the canonical Bible was only formally instituted by a Council of the Catholic Church.

You need to realize that Christianity and Catholicism are two seperate things.
No. They are synonymous.

Roman Catholicism was the part of Christianity that was made the state religion of the Roman Empire and given power,
That is questionable.

whereas "pure" Christianity, in the Bible, is a much different religion.
There is no such alternate lineage of Christianity. All other denominations that call themselves Christian are splinters from the Roman Church.

Sure, Catholicism was kind of like the mutation of Christianity, but the two are not equal.
Again, wrong. Protestantism is the mutation.

From a certain point of view, yes.... they have become so large and split from most Christian doctrines that its hard to see the line between "denomination" and "new religion", but I see your point.
Funny, then, that it is Luther who denied Catholic doctrines, and not vice versa.

They also used to exchange money for salvation. [Learn about the *precise* meaning of 'indulgence' first.

Unless you understand the precise nature of indulgences, I’d be silent on this one. And given your generally poor knowledge of anything but ancient Protestant propaganda in this area, I’d suggest following my example.

I’m sure there’s information on the subject in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which is freely available online.

I acknowledge that prior to Constantine, Chrisitianity was likely quite different. Careful there with your use of the term "Bible" however. That suggests there was One central teaching back in the day. No such thing. There was the Old Testament and various epistles, letters, and gospels some of which were appended and others omitted. The idea that Pure Christianity existed as homogenous belief is false and overly romantic. There were arguments even among the different sects, calling each other heretics. The Chrisitian Jews for example did not accept Gentiles as followers of Christ. The Gnostics believed that matter (that is, the world the God created) was evil and saw Jesus as a savior from the evil world.
Certain Gnostic gospels also contain some fascinating bits that would seem to disprove Dan Brown’s idea that the were more ‘tolerant’ of women - in fact, in one (I think the Gospel of Thomas) - Jesus says something along the lines that if any woman wants to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, she must make herself a man…!

But that’s another discussion altogether.

The Bible as you know it today and the most cogent aspects of modern Christianity owes its structure to the First Council of Nicaea under Constantine in 325. This is the root of modern Christianity, Catholic and Protestant alike.

Of course the church become corrupt with political power
What political power? Prior to the Investiture Controversy, the Church was entirely under the heel of secular authorities…

Martin Luther was in the right to point out the hypocrisies in the church's doctrines.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.

Throughout the mediaeval world there were major problems with corruption throughout the clergy - over which Rome made various attempts to correct the issue - frequently this was a job for the Inquisition. However, given the general disorganisation of the Inquisitions, their limited authority etc, they rarely managed. Most of the many monastic orders were founded by people who attempted to reform the state of the monasteries. So the idea that there was institutionalised corruption I would take exception to.


Let me get one thing straight. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic for the Last two years, and I for one am somewhat astounded at the idea that People think that Catholics aren't real Christians. Of Course, though I also know that Martin Luther was just a bit Anti-Semitic but you can take that to the Bank. I frankly am still new to the World of debating but All I can think of to say is that It seems odd that Christianity and Science are incompatible. I should know, since I'm an Evolutionist and a Proponent of The Idea that Adam and Eve never existed, but I'm getting off kilter to my point, if there ever was one. But I think I'm trying to say that I always thought Christianity has always been a successful religion because of how it can be interpreted to its followers, and the religion it self is suffering when one person can accuse another sect of Christianity of not being a true part of Christianity.

Welcome to the Church. I have to say that you are correct that science and Christianity are not necessarily incompatible - I think the great Catholic St. Thomas Aquinas would be shocked by the suggestion, to name but one. :)

I beg to differ. Jesus' apostles did not teach diverse teachings. In Galatians, I think, Paul specifically says that if anyone, even an angel, teaches something different to what they (the apostles) were teaching, they were to be accursed. The OT and the NT do not contradict each other; those other gospels, such as the gospel of Judas and whatnot, were false gospels. In fact, many of them were fakes put forth by other sects to try and justify what they were doing.

I was reading that passage just the other night…. I believe the point made in the selection of the four ‘canonical’ gospels was that they should be authentic in dating - that is, to have been evidently around for longer than the others, of an origin relating to the Apostles, and have some internal agreement. J

Why? In the beginning it was.

And, by definition, Pure Christianity would exist that way. I would not call these other sects "pure" by any means, since Pure Christianity would follow the original form of Jesus' teaching/the Bible.

“There was much else that Jesus did; if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written.” - John 21:25

One message that would seem to come across loud and clear from the New Testament is that on its own, it is not enough. It isn’t a manual on How To Be A Christian In 144 Simple And Not-So-Simple Steps. It wasn’t meant to be.

I suggest you re-read the Parable of the Sower and onwards.

Furthermore, the acceptance of the letters clearly shows that you do accept a Sacred Tradition of interpolating Jesus’ teaching and attempting to understand how His thought would apply to different situations…

Oh, I agree. But it started out as something pure, and then was corrupted by different factors. But those other denominations and viewpoints that split off can not be regarded as true Christianity.

Corrupting factors? Such as Paul?

Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope (Christians don't), and they have a line of popes descending from him that are the highest authority on Earth to them. He is the ultimate power to them, and he can exercise his judgement on anyone in the Catholic Church. This kind of power over the Church or judgement placed in the hands of one man is not what the Bible teaches, nor is it what any other Christians adhere to.

See above on the Primacy of Peter. But clearly you do not understand the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. So let me try and explain in plain English. “Whatever you consider loosed on Earth shall be considered loosed in heaven; whatever you consider bound on Earth shall be considered bound in heaven.” In other words - final authority on Earth is granted to Peter, and then passed on via the Apostolic Succession.

But the Pope can neither demand what kind of shoes I should wear to work, nor demand that Catholics believe in a fourth member of the trinity (‘though plenty of anti-popes do similar things…). Papal authority extends firstly only to matters of faith and morals.

At this point, in order to proceed you have to understand the idea of the development of doctrine. Catholic doctrine does not change. This is the most basic thing to understand. There are no deviations from a set course - to ensure which, any ‘new’ development is passed through a series of Councils, tested against existing doctrines and dogmas, the Bible, the works of the Doctors of the Church, et cetera. The process can take years.

Further, this authority can only be used to define an existing doctrine as infallible.

So why does doctrine develop? Because new situations must be dealt with. In the first century AD, almost no-one had abortions. They were just as, if not more dangerous than childbirth, technically illegal in the Roman Empire, and really only done on the fringes of the Empire by prostitutes. There was no need for an expressed teaching on the subject. Fast-forward to 1967, and clearly there now is such a need. Now, I think we can both agree that if Christ said that “if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her” (Mt. 5:28), or “everyone who divorces his wife…makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt. 5:32), it is unlike that he would support abortion.

The subject gets a lot more complicated than this, of course, but this is a simplified, brief explanation of the subject.


Oh, at this point I should probably make clear that we are discussing the Successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ, Prince of the Apostles, Patriarch of the West, Bishop of Rome and Servant of the Servants of God, and not Shenouda III, Patriarch of Alexandria. J

Catholics also believe in transubstantiation.

The precise words used in the NT Koiné are, if I recall, “toutos estin soma mou” - which literally translates as “itself, it is the body of me”. Methinks that transubstantiation has more than a little backing in Scripture….

Catholics also used to sell indulgences to buy salvation;
Again, see above.

still pray to Mary and others as saints; and etc.…
Lies.

Catholics ask Mary and the other saints to intercede, that is pray for them.

For example, if we take the most common of the Marian antiphons and dissect it:

“Hail Mary, full of grace” - ‘Hello Mary, who has much Divine Grace’ - there should be no objections to this…

“Blessed art thou amongst women” - the angel Gabriel says much the same thing.
“and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus” - OK, slight understatement, I suppose, but still…
“Holy Mary, Mother of God” - Still any objections?
“Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen.” - So, pray for our salvation and deliverance, both now, and when we are about to die.

So you see, hardly ‘worship’.

I could go through a list of others, some minor, and some not, but I hope you see my point. None of what I listed is agreed with by the Bible/Christians.
And I’m sure there are plenty of refutations. :)

Wrong again. Do you really think that what the Bible says is so interpretation-dependent?
Given that very few people in the world are experts on first-century Aramaic and Koiné, yes.
*Pops popcorn*

Evangelical fights are the best!

I begin to understand your position on Christianity...

Achilles
12-08-2007, 10:56 PM
I begin to understand your position on Christianity...Maybe if you had stuck around in some of those other threads, we could have worked our way to this point sooner.


Take care and happy holidays!

Darth InSidious
12-09-2007, 11:31 AM
Maybe if you had stuck around in some of those other threads, we could have worked our way to this point sooner.
I doubt it. Frankly, my opinion has been far more soured by the posts by others in this thread than your rhetoric could ever hope to cause.

In any case, I think I've made my position on 'science and Christianity' fairly clear before.

Take care and happy holidays!
And the same to you.

Prime
12-09-2007, 02:18 PM
Keep it civil, kids...

Achilles
12-09-2007, 03:15 PM
Keep it civil, kids...Darth Insidious, I'll submit my reply via PM.

Rev7
01-01-2008, 09:23 PM
God and Science (http://www.godandscience.org/)
Questions, comments....

matinee suxxx
01-01-2008, 11:05 PM
oh wow you have a lot of ideas, right so im only going to address a few of them. allthough i do agree with you that god is real, i have no doubt, but that doesnt garentee me a place in heaven,i need to follow a christian life and consantly ask for forgivenessand do much much more than just "believe in him".

secondly: god is the only entity that can be in our minds, know what we know. not even lucifer can read our thoughts, he's not in our heads telling us to sin, even you said he is a master at deception, he tempts gives us ideas, subtly, he does not come out and tell us to sin, he simply brings the thought to our attention.

three: i do not believe that humans lived amung the dinosaurs, just because of a mention of a sea creature. have you done more research then the bible? maybe the satanic bible by anton LaVey, the four books: Lucifer (air), Satan (fire), belile (earth), and the book of the water...**Leviathen** according to that and in the book of revalations when it talks about monsters(i wont go into detail about them i will jus call them monsters) come from the sea and the ground from hell, leads one to think the leviathen is just another representation of satan ( remember how he also appeared as a serpent to adam and eve) anyways i cant post anymore as i have to leave i will add more to this post later.

Rev7
01-02-2008, 12:43 AM
I don't undersand what you are saying...do you agree with me, do you not? Only curious...

matinee suxxx
01-02-2008, 03:25 AM
I don't undersand what you are saying...do you agree with me, do you not? Only curious...

the only things i dont agree with is that demons are in you headknowing your thoughts. i know they can posess but not read minds, and that all you have to do is believe. you need to do more then believe, you cant just go - o yeah gods real, lets go cheat on my wife, i'll still go to heaven because i believe in him. not how it works.the only two things.
now as for the antichrist i whole-heartedly agree with you, but i believe he wil come in the form of a baby. only the real jesus will come ful grown....i jus dont know about the dino thing..because almost every beast mentioned in the bible has to do with satan

mur'phon
01-03-2008, 07:06 AM
God and Science
Questions, comments....

Things i noticed after reading a couple of articles is: They make several wrong asumptions considering what atheists believe in order to make it easy to ridicule Scientific evidence suporting their cause isn't properly explained, and they don't show sources. God is the default answer when science can't explain something (yet).

RobQel-Droma
01-03-2008, 03:15 PM
God is the default answer when science can't explain something (yet).

And yet, can you prove that that isn't true for the opposite side? "God is automatically wrong"?

mur'phon
01-03-2008, 03:25 PM
And yet, can you prove that that isn't true for the opposite side? "God is automatically wrong"?

Not sure I'm understanding you corectly, but as far as I know, most scientist would accept "God" as an explanation if evidence show that there is a a god, and it is the christian one.

jonathan7
01-03-2008, 03:50 PM
Not sure I'm understanding you corectly, but as far as I know, most scientist would accept "God" as an explanation if evidence show that there is a a god, and it is the christian one.

I'm a Christian, Jesus is my saviour, but in matters of logic and faith the below is imperetive if you actually want to believe what is true...

"While spiritual insight or faith is one valid measure in spiritual matters, true spiritual insight never directly contradicts valid intellectual insight or facts in the physical world. Faith may go beyond reason, but does not go against it. It never blatantly contradicts the facts which we perceive with our God-given common sense. Faith and fact point in a single direction. Whey they do not, something is seriously wrong…A willingness to accept facts as they exist, and to learn to use them to test the views one holds rather than falling back on subjective experience or rationalizations, is the first step towards discovering genuine truth." (Charles Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, pp. 177-178)

It has been my experiance as a Christian, that my any of my scientific friends make more logical deductions about how we are here as they examine the evidence in front of them, instead of examining the evidence with a pre-exsisting supposition. That is to say; if you have already decided the answer on illogical grounds; no ammount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind.

MJ-W4
01-03-2008, 04:55 PM
It has been my experience as a Christian, that my any of my scientific friends make more logical deductions about how we are here as they examine the evidence in front of them, instead of examining the evidence with a pre-exsisting supposition. That is to say; if you have already decided the answer on illogical grounds; no ammount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind.Quoted For Truth. Believing in God in itself is no reason not to be a capable scientist. It is fanatism, religious or otherwise, that clouds the view and incapacitates people's minds.

RobQel-Droma
01-03-2008, 09:31 PM
I'm a Christian, Jesus is my saviour, but in matters of logic and faith the below is imperetive if you actually want to believe what is true...

I believe in God, and Jesus, I've devoted my life to him as well. So, when something in our world appears that has no known explanation, yes, I do suppose I say "God." After all, I believe in Him. That is my faith, my belief system. Some may see that as irrational, but when I believe in a supreme Creator of the universe.... yes: I do look to Him as having all the answers, instead of me.

It has been my experiance as a Christian, that my any of my scientific friends make more logical deductions about how we are here as they examine the evidence in front of them, instead of examining the evidence with a pre-exsisting supposition. That is to say; if you have already decided the answer on illogical grounds; no ammount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind.

That is all well and good (and I totally agree with you). However, simply by professing your faith in a divine being, you have made this "assumption" of something with no evidence (at least according to some atheists in this thread). So you have just now believed in something with no logic or rational that others can agree with.

jonathan7
01-03-2008, 09:39 PM
That is all well and good (and I totally agree with you). However, simply by professing your faith in a divine being, you have made this "assumption" of something with no evidence (at least according to some atheists in this thread). So you have just now believed in something with no logic or rational that others can agree with.

Having not head my reasons for belief in God; you and they cannot really attribute if I have used logic or not in my beliefs; and have come to a rational conclusion from the evidence. Suffice to say my best friend is an atheist and considers me the most rational thinker he knows; he doesn't consider my arguments for why I am a Christian either illogical or irrational.

RobQel-Droma
01-03-2008, 10:59 PM
Having not head my reasons for belief in God; you and they cannot really attribute if I have used logic or not in my beliefs; and have come to a rational conclusion from the evidence. Suffice to say my best friend is an atheist and considers me the most rational thinker he knows; he doesn't consider my arguments for why I am a Christian either illogical or irrational.

Well, not having heard your reasons isn't going to stop people who don't believe what you do. Just because your atheist friend consideres you a rational thinker and/or accept your reasons doesn't mean most atheists will. That was my point. :)

Samuel Dravis
01-04-2008, 01:29 AM
Quite... if your friend thinks your reasons are good yet still finds them inadequate for himself, they must only apply to yourself or your situation (here I imagine you had an entirely genuine spiritual experience).

This kind of justification does indeed seem interesting, given your other comment about faith and (material) facts 'pulling' the same direction - if this true faith never makes statements about material things, then of course it will never contradict scientific theory (although it might violate some axioms that science uses).

Given this is true, I'm not sure how it can be said that faith 'pulls' in the same direction as facts do, since they have apparently little to do with each other. Faith may accommodate facts in order to increase credibility, but even that doesn't seem necessary.

Needless to say, this system of faith lacks any criterion for revision or correction. "Private revelation" and similar reasons are completely devoid of objectivity and therefore intelligibility, regardless of how genuine a feeling you might have while experiencing it. Suppose another of your buddies had a revelation and converted, but his experience convinced him that your church is wrong (although, of course, his reasons for this are inexpressible). How to fix this?--- Establish another church. Any disagreement arising from this kind of revelation is inherently unsolvable given the complete and total lack of objectivity involved; it's hard to believe that any god would make faith caused by subjective feelings when he could just as easily throw a lightning bolt at the heretic (and so lend objectivity to faith).

So although it may look better on the surface, it's not difficult to see why many would object to a faith that necessarily agrees with science-- It seems to completely rule out objective criteria for conversion and belief by making any objective standard irrelevant...

tk102
01-04-2008, 01:52 AM
Given this is true, I'm not sure how it can be said that faith 'pulls' in the same direction as facts do, since they have apparently little to do with each other. Faith may accommodate facts in order to increase credibility, but even that doesn't seem necessary.On their own, I would agree that faith and science have little to do with each other, but these two realms of thought and experience never do exist in and of themselves. Instead they reside within the human mind which has the capacity to partake in both. The idea of 'pulling' in a direction implies a subject that is so pulled. If the mind of this subject finds agreement in the co-partaking of faith and science, it is satisfactory to say that they both pull him in the same direction.

Yet of course there is a difference between science and faith. The former can be communicated in terms and conditions that describe phenomenon objectively and predictably. The latter fills in the gaps beyond the borders of what can be described in such terms and as such is not directly communicative. If it were so, it would be science. Instead it the experience of faith can only be implied from one person to another through allegory and anecdote.

Human beings have the capacity for both, just as we have the capacity for mathematics and art. It is wise to realize the limits of each. Science can communicate objectively but cannot not explain all things, while faith can explain all things but cannot be communicated objectively.

Achilles
01-04-2008, 03:18 AM
Science can communicate objectively but cannot not explain all things,Due to a fundamental flaw with the process or...?

...while faith can explain all things but cannot be communicated objectively.Faith (in the context being used) explains nothing. Saying that something happened "by magic" is not explanation at all, let alone a powerful explanation capable of explaining all things.

Samuel Dravis
01-04-2008, 03:25 AM
On their own, I would agree that faith and science have little to do with each other, but these two realms of thought and experience never do exist in and of themselves. Instead they reside within the human mind which has the capacity to partake in both. The idea of 'pulling' in a direction implies a subject that is so pulled. If the mind of this subject finds agreement in the co-partaking of faith and science, it is satisfactory to say that they both pull him in the same direction.I would agree with you but for one problem: the faith here is being defined as in accord with science. It is meaningless talking of the direction of pull when there is only one direction possible; because of this, simply incorporating facts into belief lends it no greater credibility than it had in the first place (i.e., it stays personal and private). Like I said at the end of my last post, when faith necessarily agrees with science, any meaning the association would have had is lost. At that point one really has to question what purpose including facts into belief has, since faith doesn't consist of anything objective. Note that if this was not the case, it would be true that science could support a particular faith.

Yet of course there is a difference between science and faith. The former can be communicated in terms and conditions that describe phenomenon objectively and predictably. The latter fills in the gaps beyond the borders of what can be described in such terms and as such is not directly communicative. If it were so, it would be science. Instead it the experience of faith can only be implied from one person to another through allegory and anecdote.Yet I wonder how it could be expressed in that way, since it is by definition inexpressible. No one else can possibly know what you feel during a spiritual experience. The most you could say is, "I feel good" (but there are many things that make you feel good), or "I feel like I have to change my life!" (certainly there are objective criteria for that decision) or "I felt connected with the universe" (but what, exactly, does that mean?).

Going with the last example, how would it be possible to express "feeling connected" with the universe? Surely you couldn't show someone the feeling itself, because that is subjective. Instead you might tell someone "I was at peace" - but then you've just defined your state objectively; that is, "when I have this feeling I behave this way." - and I know what peaceful behavior looks like, because I have used and seen the same words employed in association with my own experiences.

It really doesn't matter what you feel, only how you act, for in no other way can meaning be communicated.... If you were trying to teach a baby to stay away from hot things, would you simply tell him "Stay away from hot things, they're bad for you."? Of course not. You'd show them examples of hot things, and you'd lead them away if they got too close, while saying "hot" and using various other objective gestures...

I don't find that there is anything in human experience beyond discussion for this reason: we never talk about anything but objective things, and the things that are subjective, like the feeling of heat, we show the meaning of through objective action - but we never talk about the feeling itself, only what actions occur when it is felt.

If there is something that lies outside of objective expression like described in the above, then there simply is no way to talk about it or its attributes (if it has any) because it would necessarily lack any distinguishing characteristics. If faith is of this type then it truly cannot be expressed in any intelligible way, much less by anecdotes or anything else.

Human beings have the capacity for both, just as we have the capacity for mathematics and art. It is wise to realize the limits of each. Science can communicate objectively but cannot not explain all things, while faith can explain all things but cannot be communicated objectively.I think I answered this in the above. Meaning is action; action is objective; words gain their meaning through how they are used; everything objective can be said with words and anything else simply can't be talked about.

Interestingly, since words like "explain" only have an objective meaning, they cannot be used in conjunction with subjective. Faith really can't explain anything because there are no circumstances with which one can differentiate a true explanation from a falsehood, an inherently objective concept.

tk102
01-04-2008, 03:26 AM
Due to a fundamental flaw with the process or...?
No, due to our own limits in understanding and perhaps also limits of the finite to describe the infinite.

Faith (in the context being used) explains nothing. Saying that something happened "by magic" is not explanation at all, let alone a powerful explanation capable of explaining all things.
Substitute the word intuition for faith if you like. It means the same to me in the subjective context I was meant to convey.

Achilles
01-04-2008, 03:44 AM
No, due to our own limits in understanding and perhaps also limits of the finite to describe the infinite. Ok, so science itself is not at fault for that for which is has not posited an explanation. :)

Substitute the word intuition for faith if you like. It means the same to me in the subjective context I was meant to convey. Intuition is not a powerful explanation either. It might sometime be part of a process which eventually leads to an explanation (via a rigorous process of ruling out other possible explanations), but in and of itself it's mostly useless.

We can use a hundred different fuzzy terms, but at the end of the day, there is only one institution that I am familiar with that is in the business of providing explanations.

tk102
01-04-2008, 05:06 AM
I would agree with you but for one problem: the faith here is being defined as in accord with science.That's not how I subjectively understood the argument. I read Jonathon's post as a person describing how his own faith agrees with science. -- not intending to state all faith agrees with science.

The most you could say is, "I feel good"Yes I would agree.
how would it be possible to express "feeling connected" with the universe?That's about as far as you can go. Such inner experiences always warrant an ellipses at the tail end of their description because the description itself is limited by the words used.

I don't find that there is anything in human experience beyond discussion for this reason: we never talk about anything but objective things, and the things that are subjective, like the feeling of heat, we show the meaning of through objective action.Only the part after the colon I agree with. In using words to describe inner experiences, you make a leap of faith the other person will know the meaning in the way you mean. External perceptions, measurements, things we call objective -- these things we can speak of and can finish each other's sentences in describing. I measure a table, you measure the table, and we both come up with the same number. It is reasonable to believe that our perceptions of the external experience are ver nearly identical.

With internal experiences however, descriptions will fall short for lack of external criteria on which we can both agree. In trying to describe my experience, I must attempt to elicit empathies in you in the hopes that you will find meaning in my words. But of course I cannot know your internal experience of my words. Thus we just have to settle on the limit of words. (In re-reading this, maybe that doesn't put internal experiences "beyond discussion" exactly, but I think you get my point that some experiences cannot be conveyed accurately through discussion.)

If there is something that lies outside of objective expression like described in the above, then there simply is no way to talk about it or its attributes (if it has any) because it would necessarily lack any distinguishing characteristics. If faith is of this type then it truly cannot be expressed in any intelligible way, much less by anecdotes or anything else.
Therefore internal experiences such as faith or intuition is objective because words can be ascribed to them? The words themselves may be objective, but how well they represent the experience is subjective to speaker and listener.

If we are both listening to the same music, we could objectively describe the pitch, tempo, lyrics, etc. But the fact that I heard this music while camping with friends during the summer before going to college would make the experience I had hearing that music something quite different than yours. Likewise, if I choose certain words to describe an internal experience, you can objectively describe the words I've used, but you may take a different meaning from those words than I intended.

Giving words to the experience does not make the experience objective, nor does our failure to know each other's experience mean that the experience cannot be described at all.

since words like "explain" only have an objective meaning, they cannot be used in conjunction with subjective
You're absolutely right. I did take some liberty with constructing that last parallelism. ;) The phrase "Faith can explain all things," could have been written "Faith can quiet the internal questioning of all things."

Ok, so science itself is not at fault for that for which is has not posited an explanation.
Just because science as a tool is not at fault does not necessarily mean we will be able to deduce all things in the universe if the universe is infinitely complex and our minds our finite. In other words, even as the light of science shines more and more broadly, there will always be room for imagination, intuition, and even faith for what lies beyond the shadow.


Intuition is not a powerful explanation either. It might sometime be part of a process which eventually leads to an explanation (via a rigorous process of ruling out other possible explanations), but in and of itself it's mostly useless.Whether or not an explanation is powerful or not depends on how you define powerful. If you mean powerful as in powerfully convincing to others, I'd agree. If you mean powerfully convincing to oneself... well that's subjective.

I wouldn't say intuition is mostly useless however. Many times in our lives we have to make decisions for which there is no possible way for us to know the outcome and it comes to a flip of a coin. Maybe it's a snap decision based on a hunch or getting a bad feeling about someone for no obvious reason. Intuition helps make decisions when there is no other logic to go by.

We can use a hundred different fuzzy terms, but at the end of the day, there is only one institution that I am familiar with that is in the business of providing explanations.And it's a powerful one (as in powerfully convincing to others). I didn't mean to imply that faith or intuition should be used in place of science. As Samuel pointed out, the word "explain" can't really be used by intuition or faith.

jonathan7
01-04-2008, 09:39 AM
This will be a lengthy responce;

Firstly I would like to quote this;

That's not how I subjectively understood the argument. I read Jonathon's post as a person describing how his own faith agrees with science. -- not intending to state all faith agrees with science.

Well, not having heard your reasons isn't going to stop people who don't believe what you do. Just because your atheist friend consideres you a rational thinker and/or accept your reasons doesn't mean most atheists will. That was my point.

That of course is their perogative. I would dispute the old adage that 'Great minds think alike' and instead say that great minds can have an appritiation of great minds; but rarely do they think a like. As Aristotle said; “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” If you consider any of us great minds if for you to decide; I don't expect to change anyones opinions however I hope that people may have a respect and understand why I believe what I do; while they may not agree with my conclusions.

Quite... if your friend thinks your reasons are good yet still finds them inadequate for himself, they must only apply to yourself or your situation (here I imagine you had an entirely genuine spiritual experience).

In answer to your latter point I have been healed on several occasions; once minutes from going into the operating theatre for appendicitus.

Both me and him have an appritiation of the below Russell quote; “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason to act in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.” From a collection of his essays entitled 'Why I'm not a Christian'

As such we are both pulled in a certain direction; so something we often muse is having read the same book we will have very different thoughts about it. A intruiging question does then need to be asked; what was the author trying to convay?

This kind of justification does indeed seem interesting, given your other comment about faith and (material) facts 'pulling' the same direction - if this true faith never makes statements about material things, then of course it will never contradict scientific theory (although it might violate some axioms that science uses).

The question is are you allow your own biases inherrant within you influence your thinking? i.e. Suppose there is a God, would science not point in that direction? Something I am always reminded of is none of us truly have an 'open' mind, as we are all prisoners so to speak of our own learning and expierance.

This maybe of help, its an essay entitled; How to Seek the Truth; it reflects my own methods of reasoning and has alot of my rather random reading in it; As it is not an academic work I haven't bothered with citations. However if people so wish for a source for the Quotes PM me and I will provide a list of the books they come from.

I apologise for length, but given some of what has been said I feel this is relevant with regards my perceptions of the World.

This is to aid all those who really want to seek the truth, this is my personal way of deciding what is true.

I think it would be best to use the quotes which most reflect my thinking and where my reasoning comes from. They are from minds, far more reasoned and intelligent than my own; firstly as a member of the intellegencia I would have to agree with Bertrand Russell that “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.” I fully concur with this statement as I believe the search for absolute truths misunderstands the nature of the human mind; there is absolute truth, but can any human ever be in possession of it? All we can really do is seek truth with all our hearts and minds, to constantly test what we believe against facts, to be in a constant state of a reformation of our thought. As such I think it is far better for us to attach a percentage value to how sure we are of things we have investigated. The real question is do you want to seek the truth, or be comfortable in what you believe? If you really want to find the truth read on, if not I would advise you stop reading shortly; I say this because the search for truth can be uncomfortable, it could mean having to throw out an entire set of beliefs you have had for most of your life. Stop reading now, if you would rather believe lies than to search for truth. It is my belief most people don’t really seek truth as they tend to only ever read things which back up pre-existing suppositions; instead of reading both sides of an argument then coming to a reasoned and logical conclusion.

Albert Einstein said “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvellous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.”

The philosopher William Godwin said; “I will follow truth wherever she leads.” (I think Plato said something along these lines as well but I couldn’t find the quote). I would concur with Rene Descartes when he said "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things". This quote from Descartes is highly important; as Sherlock Holmes said; "I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". If you have already decided on an answer; not matter what evidence is given to the contrary having already decided not on logical grounds; logic will have no impact on your ‘reasoning’. Bertrand Russell pointed out; “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason to act in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence”. We must find out where our natural biases are, as we will all have them, and indeed what we believe must be what we test most verdantly to make sure we are correct. Here is a great quote from my favourite Philosopher and in my opinion that greatest mind of the last millennia; Nietzsche, he said; “At every step one has to wrestle for truth; one has to surrender for it almost everything to which the heart, to which our love, our trust in life, cling otherwise. That requires greatness of soul: the service of truth is the hardest service. What does it mean, after all, to have integrity in matters of the spirit? That one is severe against one's heart...that one makes of every Yes and No a matter of conscience.”

It is my belief that in seeking truth we should work in a somewhat scientific manner that is to say that we should hypothesize then test our hypothesis. The Atheist philosopher David Hume said “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.
I would have to argue that we should always believe what we believe based on the evidence that we have gathered.

Now intellectually if we are constantly testing what we believe and as we can never 100% rule something out, this means we should allow others their opinions no matter how illogical they may seem on the small chance we are wrong. Protagoras said; “There are two sides to every question.” Following that I would quote one of the great Greeks; “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” (Aristotle). Bertrand Russell has produce an awesome quote which I have taken from a collection of his essays published as a book 'Why I am not a Christian' “The fundamental difference between the liberal and illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or less measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed to be heard. What is curious about this position is the belief that if impartial investigation were permitted it would lead men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance, therefore, the only safeguard against error. This point of view is one which cannot be accepted by any man who wishes reason rather than prejudice to govern human action.” Personally when teaching I will present both sides of an argument and let the student decide the correct answers for themselves, unless of course I am presented with a polemic, in which case I will respond with a polemic from the contrary position to provoke thought. Nietzsche said "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently."

Perhaps the most important questions are ‘Why are we here?’ and ‘Is there a God’ as the answers to these questions define our existence. Even here to be a seeker of truth I think we should base what we believe on evidence, Nietzsche said; "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." To often people of religious backgrounds make appeals to emotion and feeling over what is logical deductive reason of the facts. Charles Larson produced a simply wonderful quote; "While spiritual insight or faith is one valid measure in spiritual matters, true spiritual insight never directly contradicts valid intellectual insight or facts in the physical world. Faith may go beyond reason, but does not go against it. It never blatantly contradicts the facts which we perceive with our God-given common sense. Faith and fact point in a single direction. When they do not, something is seriously wrong…A willingness to accept facts as they exist, and to learn to use them to test the views one holds rather than falling back on subjective experience or rationalizations, is the first step towards discovering genuine truth."

I wish you luck on your search for truth, and will end with this quote from Rabindranath Tagore; "Truth comes as conqueror only to those who have lost the art of receiving it as friend."

Needless to say, this system of faith lacks any criterion for revision or correction. "Private revelation" and similar reasons are completely devoid of objectivity and therefore intelligibility, regardless of how genuine a feeling you might have while experiencing it. Suppose another of your buddies had a revelation and converted, but his experience convinced him that your church is wrong (although, of course, his reasons for this are inexpressible). How to fix this?--- Establish another church. Any disagreement arising from this kind of revelation is inherently unsolvable given the complete and total lack of objectivity involved; it's hard to believe that any god would make faith caused by subjective feelings when he could just as easily throw a lightning bolt at the heretic (and so lend objectivity to faith).

I would again advise caution, with hypothesing what I think. If I am nothing else I am an enigma and extremley contradictory. Personally I sit on the fence on with regards most Christian issues; I have me personal beliefs, but I happy to agree to disagree. That is to say I consider a Christian to be someone who loves and trusts in Jesus for their salvation; everything else is secondary to that. (For the atheists; watch as I now recieve a fair ammount of heat for that statement).

So although it may look better on the surface, it's not difficult to see why many would object to a faith that necessarily agrees with science-- It seems to completely rule out objective criteria for conversion and belief by making any objective standard irrelevant...

That is not something you can yet judge with any fairness; at the moment you risk fundemental attribution bias...

Science can communicate objectively but cannot not explain all things,

Due to a fundamental flaw with the process or...?

I would argue a difference in Question.

Science asks how?

Philosophy asks why?

I would agree with you but for one problem: the faith here is being defined as in accord with science. It is meaningless talking of the direction of pull when there is only one direction possible; because of this, simply incorporating facts into belief lends it no greater credibility than it had in the first place (i.e., it stays personal and private). Like I said at the end of my last post, when faith necessarily agrees with science, any meaning the association would have had is lost. At that point one really has to question what purpose including facts into belief has, since faith doesn't consist of anything objective. Note that if this was not the case, it would be true that science could support a particular faith.

I would make two points.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

You have already assumed of course that Atheism is true and science points in that direction, which begs a question, did you decide on atheism then research the science? Or did you become an atheist because of the science?

Whether or not an explanation is powerful or not depends on how you define powerful. If you mean powerful as in powerfully convincing to others, I'd agree. If you mean powerfully convincing to oneself... well that's subjective.

I wouldn't say intuition is mostly useless however. Many times in our lives we have to make decisions for which there is no possible way for us to know the outcome and it comes to a flip of a coin. Maybe it's a snap decision based on a hunch or getting a bad feeling about someone for no obvious reason. Intuition helps make decisions when there is no other logic to go by.

My friend Mike (a Forensic Scientis) told me something intruiging the other day; An interesting phenomena is that Forensic Psychologists are statistically ineffectual in the UK. There is no evidence that they help in the solving of crimes, however top of the field Psychiatrists are of great help. I would argue the former use deductive reason and the latter inductive; but that induction comes with a profound knowledge of the human mind.

Sorry for the long post, I hope it was of some interest.

Samuel Dravis
01-04-2008, 01:03 PM
That's not how I subjectively understood the argument. I read Jonathon's post as a person describing how his own faith agrees with science. -- not intending to state all faith agrees with science.I agree, of course. I was trying to show that a faith that necessarily incorporates scientific facts must also throw away any objective criteria for evaluating that faith, something which I think is (or at least should be) abhorrent to anyone rational. For example, jonathan's healings that he spoke of are objective and can be evaluated... but if faith does not depend on anything external whatever, it is wholly subjective and there is literally no way to talk about it.

Only the part after the colon I agree with. In using words to describe inner experiences, you make a leap of faith the other person will know the meaning in the way you mean. External perceptions, measurements, things we call objective -- these things we can speak of and can finish each other's sentences in describing. I measure a table, you measure the table, and we both come up with the same number. It is reasonable to believe that our perceptions of the external experience are very nearly identical.

With internal experiences however, descriptions will fall short for lack of external criteria on which we can both agree. In trying to describe my experience, I must attempt to elicit empathies in you in the hopes that you will find meaning in my words. But of course I cannot know your internal experience of my words. Thus we just have to settle on the limit of words. (In re-reading this, maybe that doesn't put internal experiences "beyond discussion" exactly, but I think you get my point that some experiences cannot be conveyed accurately through discussion.)I admit I was probably slightly hasty with the first sentence there. I meant that there is nothing that can be talked about that we aren't already able to convey.

No meaning is certain, at least in the sense that a word always means something and you can guarantee what the other person thinks when he hears it - but then you look to his actions to see if he knows what the word means.

If the baby stays away from hot things and can identify them with the word "hot", then he knows what hot means, regardless of any specific subjective meaning it may have to him... even if the feeling the baby has when approaching something hot is what we feel when approaching something cold.

So to give others an idea of what you mean, you simply act a certain way, say certain things that are associated with "feeling at peace." No, no one knows exactly what you feel, but since "exactly what you feel" is irrelevant to the meaning of the word, it doesn't matter.

Therefore internal experiences such as faith or intuition is objective because words can be ascribed to them? The words themselves may be objective, but how well they represent the experience is subjective to speakerand listener.Suppose I said:

I feel orange.
I feel 7354.
I feel banana.
I feel wood.
I feel blue.

What meaning do these sentences have? None, save for the last one. Why? Because it is used in conjunction with a certain objective state. When you feel blue it means you're depressed or sad, so you mope around and generally act depressed.

I suppose if I said "I feel 7354" every time I acted in a specific way, then it could gain meaning-- but only to people who know what actions the sentence refers to. Simply saying, "I have decided to call feeling X joy" does not lend understanding to anyone else about what you mean, and indeed, since you lack any criteria for deciding what exact feeling is "joy" it doesn't mean much to you either. You'd simply decide what seems right, and that is no definition at all. Because of this, the words are objective and mean objective things. There is absolutely no discussion of anything subjective.

If we are both listening to the same music, we could objectively describe the pitch, tempo, lyrics, etc. But the fact that I heard this music while camping with friends during the summer before going to college would make the experience I had hearing that music something quite different than yours. Likewise, if I choose certain words to describe an internal experience, you can objectively describe the words I've used, but you may take a different meaning from those words than I intended.I agree with this except for the last "likewise" and on. What meaning is supposed to be conveyed by the words which do not have an objective definition? I might construe it to be something good, since you are excited about it and seem happy, but other than that there is no way to know what you're talking about.

Giving words to the experience does not make the experience objective, nor does our failure to know each other's experience mean that the experience cannot be described at all.I think I responded to this in the two above replies.

You're absolutely right. I did take some liberty with constructing that last parallism. ;) The phrase "Faith can explain all things," could have been written "Faith can quiet the internal questioning of all things."I have to agree with you there, tk.

--------------------------------
In answer to your latter point I have been healed on several occasions; once minutes from going into the operating theatre for appendicitis.I see. Now you've made me curious... did you believe before or after these occurrences, and what connects these healings with anything other than the fact of the happening itself?

Both me and him have an apparition of the below Russell quote;

As such we are both pulled in a certain direction; so something we often muse is having read the same book we will have very different thoughts about it. A intriguingly question does then need to be asked; what was the author trying to convey?I do agree with the quote, and it is certainly worthy of careful consideration whenever a judgment is necessary.

What does an author intend to convey? I suppose that depends on what the book's topic is. If it's nonfiction then it should be absolutely clear what it is about, or the author has not done his job... if it's fiction and/or has subjective elements, then it really doesn't matter what the author "intended" to convey, since there is no correct interpretation.

The question is are you allow your own biases inherent within you influence your thinking? i.e. Suppose there is a God, would science not point in that direction? Something I am always reminded of is none of us truly have an 'open' mind, as we are all prisoners so to speak of our own learning and experience.Certainly my biases will influence my thinking. I am biased into thinking that some people are more trustworthy than others. I'm biased into thinking that some statements are more true than others... and although those biases have an objective reason, they are not a guarantee they will be right.

Supposing there is a God would require me to know what god would do in order to make an intelligible statement on the subject of whether the facts would reflect him. Since I don't have any objective experience with god, and no one else seems to have any objective experience with god, I fear this question is meaningless.

Note that this does not discount interesting items such as your healings, which are objective. It simply means that since it is not possible to objectively know that god did it, those healings do not serve as viable information in knowing god's will. We can speculate, of course, but since there is no way to correct such speculation I don't think that an attribution of wrong or right is applicable. Perhaps it could be nonsense, but nothing more.


This maybe of help, its an essay entitled; How to Seek the Truth; it reflects my own methods of reasoning and has alot of my rather random reading in it; As it is not an academic work I haven't bothered with citations. However if people so wish for a source for the Quotes PM me and I will provide a list of the books they come from.

I apologise for length, but given some of what has been said I feel this is relevant with regards my perceptions of the World.I do appreciate those quotes, I like several already. :)

I would again advise caution, with hypothesizing what I think. If I am nothing else I am an enigma and extremely contradictory. Personally I sit on the fence on with regards most Christian issues; I have me personal beliefs, but I happy to agree to disagree. That is to say I consider a Christian to be someone who loves and trusts in Jesus for their salvation; everything else is secondary to that. (For the atheists; watch as I now receive a fair amount of heat for that statement).As I'm fairly sure that you do not depend on faith alone given your previous comments, I don't think it would apply to you. You've averted an anti-irrationalist beatdown (at least from me, anyway). :D

That is not something you can yet judge with any fairness; at the moment you risk fundamental attribution bias...It is difficult to think of another objective standard apart from the world, and I believe my statement is true as far as it applies to faiths that necessarily include scientific facts.

Regardless, if that is not what you believe, then I am sorry if I have implied that it is your faith specifically.

I would argue a difference in Question.

Science asks how?

Philosophy asks why?I would say that philosophy asks "how?" just as science does. Philosophy, however, is usually constrained to linguistic problems. "How is this problem resolved?" By finding the fault in our use of language... as such, philosophy is entirely descriptive, a tool for grammatical correction and nothing more.

You have already assumed of course that Atheism is true and science points in that direction, which begs a question, did you decide on atheism then research the science? Or did you become an atheist because of the science?I had previously been a catholic, but fell away when I realized I had no reason to believe as I did... At best, my explanation for why I was religious is because I was brought up that way. I had no spiritual experiences, and I haven't had one yet (feelings of awe when looking at the galaxy and such I don't count here). Faith had accorded me no greater explanations than I could obtain simply from looking at the world, so it was discarded as useless.

Yes, I did want faith to give me explanations and understanding. Some might consider that the wrong way to have faith, but I think it is a fairly reasonable expectation that should be required for any justification.


My friend Mike (a Forensic Scientist) told me something intriguing the other day; An interesting phenomena is that Forensic Psychologists are statistically ineffectual in the UK. There is no evidence that they help in the solving of crimes, however top of the field Psychiatrists are of great help. I would argue the former use deductive reason and the latter inductive; but that induction comes with a profound knowledge of the human mind.

Sorry for the long post, I hope it was of some interest.That is interesting about Mike, and it was quite an interesting post. Thank you.

Achilles
01-04-2008, 01:39 PM
And it's a powerful one (as in powerfully convincing to others). I didn't mean to imply that faith or intuition should be used in place of science. As Samuel pointed out, the word "explain" can't really be used by intuition or faith.Well, when you say things like, "science can't explain stuff and faith can explain everything", it kinda makes me nervous. :)

tk102
01-04-2008, 02:09 PM
:lol: Call it philosophizing rather than advocating. The extent to which one listens to their own internal, non-rational, and subjective experience is up to the individual.

Thanks for the posts Jonathan, Samuel Dravis, and Achilles. :)

jonathan7
01-04-2008, 02:18 PM
:lol: Call it philosophizing rather than advocating. The extent to which one listens to their own internal/non-rational experience is up to the individual.

Thanks for the posts Jonathon, Samuel Dravis, and Achilles. :)

Hehe, thanks to you as well tk102; I have most enjoyed reading you as well as Samuel Dravis and Achilles :)

I agree, of course. I was trying to show that a faith that necessarily incorporates scientific facts must also throw away any objective criteria for evaluating that faith, something which I think is (or at least should be) abhorrent to anyone rational. For example, jonathan's healings that he spoke of are objective and can be evaluated... but if faith does not depend on anything external whatever, it is wholly subjective and there is literally no way to talk about it.

Agreed; of course from a Christian perspective; 1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

While I cannot speak for other faiths, or perhaps many Christians; I think when asked questions you should be able to give a tangible reason for thinking why you do.


You're absolutely right. I did take some liberty with constructing that last parallism. The phrase "Faith can explain all things," could have been written "Faith can quiet the internal questioning of all things."

I have to agree with you there, tk.

As do I, it is most disturbing to me how often Religion is used as a tool to stem questions. If something is the truth it can answer all pertinant questions regarding it; indeed I think all questions must be allowed to be asked. Personally I take it as a sign of a cult if you ever receive the answer; 'you should just believe'. I would also refer back to Russell's quote on 'the illeberal and liberal'.

I see. Now you've made me curious... did you believe before or after these occurrences, and what connects these healings with anything other than the fact of the happening itself?

Well; I was a Christian before the heelings; twice it has involved appendecitus the second was most amusing as the Consultant was most confused by the whole affair; as apparently you shouldnt get better from appendecitus on your own. (I would like to point out that and I quote "it can't of been appendicitus; it most have been something else, even though all my symptoms pointed towards appendicitus"). Conclude what you wish. In the grander scheme (and connection) of things this was just a few days before the Christian camp I lead on; so I would have missed that had I gone into theatre, so a prayer request was sent out to my fellow leaders. Divine intervention or sheer fluke? I suppose that depends on our natural biases ;) (On perhaps a larger scale; I am of course aware that prayer studies have revealed very little of scientific evidence.)

I do agree with the quote, and it is certainly worthy of careful consideration whenever a judgment is necessary.

What does an author intend to convey? I suppose that depends on what the book's topic is. If it's nonfiction then it should be absolutely clear what it is about, or the author has not done his job... if it's fiction and/or has subjective elements, then it really doesn't matter what the author "intended" to convey, since there is no correct interpretation.

Ahh the death of the author; something some Christians feel the need to strongly argue against. I agree to a point; in that all texts (religious or other) have multiple interpretations; in terms of human works their will be as you put "intended" interpretation. I would concur that if there is no God there is no correct interpretion; perhaps however say Allah is the true God; does he not have an intended/correct interpretation of that script?

Certainly my biases will influence my thinking. I am biased into thinking that some people are more trustworthy than others. I'm biased into thinking that some statements are more true than others... and although those biases have an objective reason, they are not a guarantee they will be right.

The constrains of being human are sometimes frustrating (at least in my opinion).

Supposing there is a God would require me to know what god would do in order to make an intelligible statement on the subject of whether the facts would reflect him. Since I don't have any objective experience with god, and no one else seems to have any objective experience with god, I fear this question is meaningless.

I conceed most but not all; I think I would questions this "and no one else seems to have any objective experience with god, I fear this question is meaningless."

Note that this does not discount interesting items such as your healings, which are objective. It simply means that since it is not possible to objectively know that god did it, those healings do not serve as viable information in knowing god's will. We can speculate, of course, but since there is no way to correct such speculation I don't think that an attribution of wrong or right is applicable. Perhaps it could be nonsense, but nothing more.

Speculation; If there is a God and there is an afterlife, would it not be logical that he would leave at least some evidence for us? Would you like me to kill a meatbag now master? ;)

Musing; In machine heaven will I still be able to blast meatbags?

On a more serious note perhaps a rephrasing of the question would be helpful?


I do appreciate those quotes, I like several already. :)

I'm glad you enjoyed them :)


As I'm fairly sure that you do not depend on faith alone given your previous comments, I don't think it would apply to you. You've averted an anti-irrationalist beatdown (at least from me, anyway). :D

Haha, thanks.

It is difficult to think of another objective standard apart from the world, and I believe my statement is true as far as it applies to faiths that necessarily include scientific facts.

Regardless, if that is not what you believe, then I am sorry if I have implied that it is your faith specifically.

No worries; perhaps you would to exapnd on what you mean by "faiths that necessarily include scientific facts."

To aid you with regards understanding me I wille xpand and give you an example; I'm a Christian for what I think about Jesus and events around his time. However I don't beleive the Bible is infallible or inerrant because I dont believe that is a logical conclusion from the data (nor a necessary or needed one). I would also sooner believe science than a 7day interpretation of Genesis and the creation of the world; as if the world was created in 7 days the science would show that; needless to say it doesn't (I think websites such as AiG to be psuedo science). Indeed, nowadays I have one foot in the evolution camp; so I would accept that as well; because I think thats where the evidence leads me and it does raise some interesting and difficult questions.

I would say that philosophy asks "how?" just as science does. Philosophy, however, is usually constrained to linguistic problems. "How is this problem resolved?" By finding the fault in our use of language... as such, philosophy is entirely descriptive, a tool for grammatical correction and nothing more.

Fair enough; I would probably disagree with you on this point. :) Although some philosophy (such as does a tree make a noise in a forest when no-one is around) seems to be involve alot of pointless conversing about a subject that I don't think is too important.

Our friend Russell has this to say;

“The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.” (The Philosophy of Logical Atomism)

I had previously been a catholic, but fell away when I realized I had no reason to believe as I did... At best, my explanation for why I was religious is because I was brought up that way. I had no spiritual experiences, and I haven't had one yet (feelings of awe when looking at the galaxy and such I don't count here). Faith had accorded me no greater explanations than I could obtain simply from looking at the world, so it was discarded as useless.

Well; I think you are far more interesting for having broken away from the 'herd' as it were. As I posted elsewhere I believe majority is just another word for mediocrity; I suppose I will have to quote 'Bert' again...

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” (Marriage and Morals, Chapter 5)

Yes, I did want faith to give me explanations and understanding. Some might consider that the wrong way to have faith, but I think it is a fairly reasonable expectation that should be required for any justification.

That to me sounds like entirely sound and fair expectations.

That is interesting about Mike, and it was quite an interesting post. Thank you.

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it and look foward to your reply :) Take Care.

Samuel Dravis
01-04-2008, 04:25 PM
Thanks for the posts Jonathan, Samuel Dravis, and Achilles. :)Same to you, tk. You always have something interesting to say about rivers. :D

Agreed; of course from a Christian perspective;

While I cannot speak for other faiths, or perhaps many Christians; I think when asked questions you should be able to give a tangible reason for thinking why you do.I appreciate this understanding on your part.


As do I, it is most disturbing to me how often Religion is used as a tool to stem questions. If something is the truth it can answer all pertinent questions regarding it; indeed I think all questions must be allowed to be asked. Personally I take it as a sign of a cult if you ever receive the answer; 'you should just believe'. I would also refer back to Russell's quote on 'the illiberal and liberal'.Certainly a good thing in my view. :)

Well; I was a Christian before the heelings; twice it has involved appendecitus the second was most amusing as the Consultant was most confused by the whole affair; as apparently you shouldnt get better from appendecitus on your own. (I would like to point out that and I quote "it can't of been appendicitus; it most have been something else, even though all my symptoms pointed towards appendicitus"). Conclude what you wish. In the grander scheme (and connection) of things this was just a few days before the Christian camp I lead on; so I would have missed that had I gone into theatre, so a prayer request was sent out to my fellow leaders. Divine intervention or sheer fluke? I suppose that depends on our natural biases ;) (On perhaps a larger scale; I am of course aware that prayer studies have revealed very little of scientific evidence.)I imagine that would be surprising. :D
I appreciate your explanation, although I can't say I am convinced that it indicates anything other than you getting well spontaneously.

Ahh the death of the author; something some Christians feel the need to strongly argue against. I agree to a point; in that all texts (religious or other) have multiple interpretations; in terms of human works their will be as you put "intended" interpretation. I would concur that if there is no God there is no correct interpretion; perhaps however say Allah is the true God; does he not have an intended/correct interpretation of that script?As I find that any objective truth can be spoken, interpretations are either flaws in understanding an objective sentence or the result of the sentence not making sense in the first place. The first can come about when we are unfamiliar with the use of the word in the context in which it is written. If the disagreement cannot be resolved by a close examination of the text the author may have intended this unfamiliarity, in which case he's simply not trying to communicate. The second case is that he may have been trying to talk about something subjective himself without realizing how meaning is given to words (and clearly failing to communicate). I'm not sure how god would have trouble understanding how words are used, and I have no explanation why a god would purposefully be opaque in his use of them.

In this case, I can see no justification behind a god allowing multiple interpretations unless this ambiguity (and its consequences) was exactly his intention.

The constrains of being human are sometimes frustrating (at least in my opinion).Indeed. :p

I concede most but not all; I think I would questions this "and no one else seems to have any objective experience with god, I fear this question is meaningless."I say that in reference to my only objective criteria: the world. No one else has ever shown or even demonstrated the theoretical capability of showing me god, ergo my statement. If it is subjective then they simply can't; if it is objective then how come no one can prove it?

I of course speak only from my own experience of looking for this kind of answer for several years, but nothing I have seen indicates that anyone's faith can be shown to be true in an objective way.

Speculation; If there is a God and there is an afterlife, would it not be logical that he would leave at least some evidence for us? Would you like me to kill a meatbag now master? ;)

Musing; In machine heaven will I still be able to blast meatbags?

On a more serious note perhaps a rephrasing of the question would be helpful?A rephrasing may indeed help... as it is, I have exactly one example of the universe, and that is the one in question. Drawing a conclusion from such a limited dataset, especially without any more information on what god wants, is impossible. I can't draw a predictive conclusion - "God WOULD do this" without 1) knowing what the concept of God consists of (i.e., is it objective or not, what boundaries are to be put on it, etc); and 2) having more experience with what God does (to find out what sort of actions he takes and whether those correspond with good, evil, or something else).

Some faiths hold that god is not constrained by logic, such as Allah. In that case I wouldn't be able to answer even if I knew what god usually does. If that's true then there isn't any point to the question at all.

No worries; perhaps you would to expand on what you mean by "faiths that necessarily include scientific facts."By that I simply mean faiths that do not require objective criteria for belief. For example, someone who simply says "I have faith in certain things about the metaphysical only" would be a culprit of this. While they certainly can accept every scientific fact, the only reason that there wouldn't be a direct contradiction between facts and faith is because they are kept very, very far away from each other. Because that is so, there is no objective criteria that can be established to verify the accuracy of such faith; it cannot be said to be anything other than completely lacking in justification, reason or rationality.

Of course, if the belief were inspired by some objective facts, that would be a different story. It could be discussed and the objective consequences of that faith could be evaluated. An example of a thing that would qualify a faith for this is a (specific) prophecy coming true. This would allow people to compare something they could look at, something objective, with what faith tells them. As it is, there is very little of this comparison going on - and this simply means that by design there are no standards to critically evaluate the faith...

One might look at the body of scientific theory as a massive collection of such prophecies. And in nearly all cases, the events predicted come true.


edit: perhaps I could make this a little clearer. For a belief to be justifiable, it has to be based on objective facts. For example, a justified belief would be to think that the sun will rise again in the morning. This belief is based on the totality of previous experience regarding the sun. Yes, the sun does go down, but it always comes up again. A strictly logical connection is unnecessary since there is no logical way to go from past experience to future prediction, but the concept of justification clearly exists (we speak of someone being justified in belief if there are past events that have led to a similar conclusion).

How about, for example, someone took one day starting at noon to make their predictions and ignored all other days? Wouldn't they find that the sun went down.... and there is no reason to suppose it will come up again?

But all they have to do is wait a while before they're shown to be wrong, of course. The sun will rise again in the morning - but that is a specific criterion to prove or disprove the claim.

Is a faith that started out as a justified belief believes - regardless of whether their claim has any ability to be shown wrong - based on the facts, or just some of them? Is there any instance in which god healing you could be shown to be an incorrect hypothesis? Can the sun rise, even in theory? Surely the healing is based on reality, and thus the faith can be justified; but what else has not been included in this judgment? The uncountable millions of people who have not been so healed; those ones that have been healed regardless of their belief; etc. Why should these factors be left out? What may be extraordinary in a specific case may be fairly ordinary in humanity as a whole, even though the incident rate is fairly low.

Any faith that does not contain the ability to prove it wrong contains no meaning or justification (at least not any more). Accepting scientific facts as givens simply means that the faith is based on something that is not (at least any longer) affected by objective facts... and thus it must be unjustified.

To aid you with regards understanding me I while expand and give you an example; I'm a Christian for what I think about Jesus and events around his time. However I don't believe the Bible is infallible or inerrant because I don't believe that is a logical conclusion from the data (nor a necessary or needed one). I would also sooner believe science than a 7day interpretation of Genesis and the creation of the world; as if the world was created in 7 days the science would show that; needless to say it doesn't (I think websites such as AiG to be pseudo science). Indeed, nowadays I have one foot in the evolution camp; so I would accept that as well; because I think thats where the evidence leads me and it does raise some interesting and difficult questions.A moderate then. I appreciate your quest to understand the world rationally; I can relate. :)

Fair enough; I would probably disagree with you on this point. :) Although some philosophy (such as does a tree make a noise in a forest when no-one is around) seems to be involve alot of pointless conversing about a subject that I don't think is too important.Alright. :D
My current position stems from the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, which I have only recently been introduced to in the past months... I have to admit that his explanations of language and how it is used are incredibly seductive to someone who hates intractable philosophical problems (like me! :D). If you're interested, I recommend his Philosophical Investigations, as it contains much of what I have discussed (the "Private Language Argument"). I agree this attraction may be a "pull" in the direction of linguistic philosophy, but I have not stopped looking for good objections to him just yet-- it seems too good to be true. :p

Fair enough; I would probably disagree with you on this point. Although some philosophy (such as does a tree make a noise in a forest when no-one is around) seems to be involve a lot of pointless conversing about a subject that I don't think is too important.edit: I was reading some of the Investigations today and came across this quote which may help address your disagreement: "471. It often happens that we become aware of the most important facts, if we suppress the question "why?"; and then in the course of our investigations those facts lead us to an answer."

It is very difficult to stop thinking about the "why?" or "what?" in questions, which is part of the reason problems arise; we tend to think of words as denoting something specific and subjective, but when we look at how we actually use the words we find that view becomes untenable. Often the problem is different then we perceive it to be in the first place; by examination of the facts we can avoid making the problem any harder than it actually is.

Our friend Russell has this to say;My friend Wittgenstein also has something similarly interesting to say: "What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence. "

:D

JediMaster12
01-04-2008, 04:57 PM
As do I, it is most disturbing to me how often Religion is used as a tool to stem questions. If something is the truth it can answer all pertinent questions regarding it; indeed I think all questions must be allowed to be asked. Personally I take it as a sign of a cult if you ever receive the answer; 'you should just believe'. I would also refer back to Russell's quote on 'the illiberal and liberal'.
Then I guess science can be construed as a religion itself since it stems questions. The reason I say this is that under Clifford Geertz's definition of religion, science would fit in that realm. The actual definition is this:
"Religion is defined as (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

If you think about it, science is exactly the same way.

Achilles
01-04-2008, 09:15 PM
I certainly acknowledge that arbitrarily redefining terms is one way to make one's point, but I wonder what the rest of us gain.

I really have to wonder what people hope to accomplish by arguing that science is a religion? Religion is such an awesome thing until we try to denigrate something else. Then we say "_____ is just like religion". So is religion something good or isn't it?