Ambrosia Software Web Board: Oh, for the days of the old ATT... - Ambrosia Software Web Board

Don't forget to take pictures, for the good of the board and all that...

Ouch, that was a little nasty. Don't you think I know conservatives too? Do you think every time I see them I tell them I think they should die? Don't you think it is possible for someone to exagerate for emphasis?

To be fair, I do hate republicans, mormons, scientologists, pretty much just fanatics of any kind, however I hate these groups of people because I don't like to see my fellow human beings making terrible ideological mistakes. So why would I want them dead if the only reason I hate them is because I like humanity so much that I don't like it when it makes mistakes?

Also, why not push Kerry and Bush off a bridge? You know, give the whole process a fresh start. We can get all our friends together, and give both Kerry and Bush guns, and then, push them off to save our friends from the terrible killers.

FlamingGodSmiley, on Jan 4 2005, 12:09 AM, said:

I pretty much dislike religion of any kind. While I understand that it can be a strong help in peoples lives, I find it rather rediculous that normally rational people can put all of their belief in things that the have never personally witnessed, experianced, etc., things that are no less than fairy tales written 1000s of years ago by old men who were just trying to find ways to explain everyday events, and explainations for why we are here (and might I add most of these men most likely had sever cases of ergotism). And yet they make it so easy to dismiss, and even put down other just as plauseable explainations of our reasons for living. One example of this discrimination of religion that REALLY pisses me off: In the fairly early years of Christianity when Wicca was still popular the Pope (or possibly another religious leader, I am not completely certain) declared Wicca a satanic, evil religion as means to convert more citizens to Christianity. And whats worse is that these misconceptions are still present today.
Another thing out religion that I really cannot stand: the hipocrocy. As quoted from Leviticus, "Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." So why discriminate agianst homosexuals. Why deny them marriage? Because you are too insecure in your own sexuality to accept those different than you? Or are you trying to do God's work. You're not God. It isn't your place to punish people for their "sins." "God" will see that they are punished accordingly.
Oh, and people who refuse to believe in Evolution (or in the exsistance of dinosaurs for that matter)...you really piss me off. Thats just plain blind ignorance. Figure it out. Open your eyes people!! Its right there in front of you!! When you can show me phyiscal, plausible proof that your god exsists then maybe, maybe I'll see it your way. Until then wake up out of your fairy tale or at least stop trying to force me into it.

That is all.

I apologize if anyone was offended.

FlamingGodSmiley, on Jan 4 2005, 09:09 AM, said:

Seems to me that wanting to kill someone due to their beliefs, is the act of a fanatic if I've ever seen one...

Vec-



I can't help but agree with you on some of what you said there.

Religion
My friend has a saying - "I hate it when religion gets in the way of faith"... or something like that... and I agree with them. I'm not saying organised religion is necessarily a bad thing - it is, after all, nice to hang around with like-minded people and to celebrate with them - but it does have it's downsides. It has a nasty habit of closing your mind, of leading you into the trap of saying "I do this because I've done it every week for the past 30 years", of making you forget exactly what brought you to where you are in the first place. The mantras, the rhetoric... all inhibit faith.

An example? Well, the Catholic church believes in the Rite of Atonement - that receiving forgiveness from God is a Big Deal, that the only way to receive it is to announce your failings to a priest or some other church official, and say a number of 'Hail Mary's... that we are sinners and somehow incapable - or disallowed - to talk to God and ask Him for forgiveness directly. In another case, Catholics pray to Mary and to various saints as intermediaries, because they are not worthy to talk to God himself. Wander around Europe and look at the old Church buildings - marvellous works of architecture, for sure, but all concentrated on saying that we are all lowly sinners and do not have the right to meet God face-to-face.
It serves to make us feel worthless, to distance us from God... to enforce this belief that this 'God' stuff has no relevance in today's world.

Then there's the stereotype issue that I face a lot from certain members of my parents' church - that Christians are well-dressed, well-spoken people that file into church on a sunday morning, sing hymns, bow their heads in prayer, listen attentively, all in an awe-struck manner without actually feeling what is being said. I have long hair, I usually wear jeans and a t-shirt... I think that worship shouldn't just be standing there and singing glum hymns about how bad sinners we are, I believe that we should be happy and sing about how wonderful God is.
But no... Christians don't have long hair, Christians shouldn't befriend gays, or people whose skins are a different colour, or who may worship another god. Yes, we know that Jesus talked to these unsavoury people, but you ain't Jesus, boy. We've got this nice church going here, and we don't want any oik off the street spoiling it. Oh, and God is only present when you're sat church bowing contritely, nowhere else.

... it's everything I hate about organised religion. Go read the Bible, it tells us that God loves us, that God forgives easily, that God wants us to be saved. It tells us that we should be like God, it tells us that we're never going to be perfect, but we're going to get marks for trying. It teaches about equality, that we're all alike in God's eyes. It teaches us that God is anywhere and everywhere. It's such a great lesson, and organised religion misses the point completely.
I'm a Christian, but I'm not religious... I have faith, I see God wherever I go, I know that wherever I am, I can talk to Him as a friend, and that He will answer (as long as I listen).

My point... organised religion can be a bad thing, and has a lot to answer for both in the past and in the present day. It doesn't mean that people of that religion - people who have faith - are all bad.

On 'alternatives'...
Maybe an offencive title, but never mind. I'm talking about homosexuality, about other religions, about stuff that is loosely bundled in the packet labelled 'pagan'... about the way that Christianity in particular seems to defy God's own teaching in being completely xenophobic towards any of it to the point of spreading stories that are totally untrue.
It's the result of being close-minded, of living by someone's interpretation of God's will (whether by lector, by mantra, or by creed) rather than reading the Bible and realising that God wants something completely different.
It's also a natural response to being intimidated by something, not understanding what it means, of being underdeveloped. Go look at the way prepubescent boys treat girls... like they're some kind of alien, that they've got some kind of disease - touch them and you die ("eewww... girl germs"). A few years later, you can't keep them away.
Organised religion is so worked up in saying "this is wrong" that it forgets the whole "equality" business... that even if you think something is wrong, you don't attempt to correct it by shouting "burn them" and chasing after the selected 'wrongdoer' with pitchforks.

Evolution
... hasn't been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, and it really annoys me when people claim otherwise. It's theory, not fact. I may be a Christian, but I've been trained (at school, college, and uni) as a scientist. I know how many 'fiddle factors' there are in the equations that are there "to make the numbers work, but we don't know why".
Same applies to the Big Bang... no conclusive proof yet.

On Proving God
Difficult. It's a faith thing, I'm afraid. The best analogy of faith that I know goes something like this:
Electricity - you can't see it, but you can observe it's effect. Pass electricity through a thin filament, and it glows. The scientists tell you that it's about the transfer of energy between electrons, and we take their word for it.
Faith... it's a little different. I can't see God, but I can see Him in the things around me. I can feel His touch on my life... I know that He talks to me on occasion. Of course, some psychologists and scientist will claim that this is a flawed interpretation of external stimuli and brainwave patterns. But then, people who don't understand electricity think that it's some kind of voodoo...

Go figure

--

This thought-provoking post has been brought to you by some deep thinking and a deep-seated desire not to revise or write this essay on the legal system.

-Jon

Congratulations on a very well thought-out post.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 4 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

Ain't that the truth. We are miserable sinners, although in fairness so are the church officials so why should they have the right to talk to God and not us? However, I don't see how you can really appreciate the awesome power of god in one of these wishy-washy 'New Churches' which are nothing more than an excuse to have a knees-up. (My church).

Quote

God loves us all the same, why should the church officials be higher up than us?

Quote

I agree with that, although I like my choir robes.

Quote

Amen.

Quote

Yep. Read the parable of the good Samaritan. Especially read the part about the priest.

Quote

Organised religeon is for the most part so utterly killjoy that I'm amazed that a lot of people can stand it.

Quote

Evolution: There are many things that point to this being true, but it's not proven yet.
The Big Bang: How do you explain all the radiation/aftershock that is still around today?

Quote

Proof isn't everything. Did you love your parents? Can you prove that?

my 2¢.

Agent_Vast, on Jan 4 2005, 02:02 PM, said:

Precisely. We're all miserable sinners (1 John 1 somewhere), but the Bible also tells us that we only need to ask for forgiveness and we'll be forgiven. Why the segregation?

Agent_Vast, on Jan 4 2005, 02:02 PM, said:

Define 'new church'... my Aunt and Uncle go to this church, which is 'new'... but the message they put out is extremely powerful. Then again, I have been to 'new church' meetings where I've been filled with an extreme sense of sceptism about what's actually going on. Whether that's because it's New Thing for me, or actually a warning... I've no idea.

Agent_Vast, on Jan 4 2005, 02:02 PM, said:

"Ooh look, there's a man standing next to a dead body. He's got blood on his hands... he must have killed them"...

Actually, I'm willing to make a compromise on the big bang - the Bible says that God created the universe, it doesn't say how. The big bang theory is a viable explanation. That said, it still has yet to be conclusively proven.

Agent_Vast, on Jan 4 2005, 02:02 PM, said:

Agent_Vast++

-Jon

Not that none of you know this, but Charles Darwin, on his deathbed, repudiated evolution. If that doesn't say something, I don't know what does.

Mackilroy, on Jan 4 2005, 02:57 PM, said:

I've given up pointing that one out...

I'm sorry. If someone pointed that out already, my mistake. Guess I'll have to check the previous pages to see what people have written more often.

This isn't the old days of ATT.

I leave my real-world debates in the real world......

Wow lektor, that was almost a very good point. However, I did say that I was exagerating for effect. In fact, that whole post was to explain that I was exagerating for effect, and that I did not, in fact, want all those people to die. I wanted them to right their vile ways. Killing them would be easier, but it wouldn't solve anything. The idea would live on, and someone would eventually believe it unless everyone was convinced how incredibley wrong all of these ideas are.

Now, I'm going to say this plain and simple so that everyone can get it. I don't want to kill anyone.

Quote

I would like to take the time to explain the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

A Theory - is a Well proven, scientifically accepted, explation of a natural phemonena.

A Hypothesis - is an unproven statement.

So you can say Evolution is a Theory not a fact, but that does not make it any less of an accurate explanaiton of the natural world. Unless you also want to say, the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity (Special and General), Information Theory, Atomic Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Cell Theory, are all also "just theories."

I acctually do not like religion, organized or unorganized of any kind. Religion was needed by humans, when we did not have an explaination of the dark, when the unknown was something dreadful and terrible. Now why is there a need to fear that dark? When a drought comes, we know that it was not caused as a form a divine retribution, but because of a series of atmospheric events. When a plague strike, we know that sacrifices at an altar are unnecessary, and that our knowledge of medicine is what will heal people.

The Real Darth Bob, on Jan 4 2005, 07:31 PM, said:

Very well put.

The Real Darth Bob, on Jan 4 2005, 07:31 PM, said:

Exactly.

Vec, I love ya, but some things I just don’t agree with.. I feel a rant coming on. Don’t take any offense to any of this.
Religion definitely can be a huge thing in people’s lives. I don’t see what’s wrong with putting all your faith into something when you’re normally a rational person. I’m a rational person, and I’m religious; but I don’t put all of my faith into something made up. Some people, (like myself) have experienced and witnessed things that would seem impossible. Religion is something that you feel. It’s a comfort, I guess you could say. Someone is always with you. Someone is always there to help. Whether or not that person is in the flesh, you still have someone there when you need them. God is like the atmosphere. Nobody really knows what it looks like, so we do the best we can to imagine what it looks like. But in ourselves, we know it’s there and we do the best we can to see it.
Were you alive during World War II? No.. Therefore it didn’t happen? No.. Sometimes you have to trust history. Because you weren’t there, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t believe in it.
The old men, writing fairy tails, were not making things up just to have an explanation for something. Fairy tales are for enjoyment and teaching kids lessons, like don’t talk to strangers. These stories are ways to better or lives. The things that were written were things that actually happened. Granted, some of these things are explanations, but they weren’t the work of egotistical old men. The gospels are four accounts of the same things that happened from four different men. There are few discrepancies. I find it ironic that you, yourself, are ready to dismiss religion and speak badly of it. Our reasons of living aren’t understood by anyone fully. No human knows exactly why we’re here. Religious and non.
A lot of what’s written is stories and examples of how to live our life in a fuller and happier way. I don’t see any harm in that. Not everything is supposed to be taken literally. They are guidelines and suggestions for keeping us out of trouble that some people who may not be religious don’t understand. They could if they wanted to, however. They may take them more as discriminations. In your example, the religious leader who declared the Wicca religion satanic in order to draw more people to Christianity, declared it satanic because it was, in the early days. You know…drown the witches! They’re evil! Many things in the past were wrong. That’s just the way it is. There’s a huge difference between what happened then and now. Since then, views have changed, and like most religions, so has the religion itself. As a Catholic, I know even my religion has changed, a lot. Some for the better.
Gay marriage? The definition of marriage 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law That’s fact, unless you want to change that definition, there’s nothing you can do. No matter how many times you say orange juice is made with apples, you’ll always be wrong. Orange juice is made of oranges. That’s just the way it is. Words mean something, and marriage is one of them. I see absolutely nothing wrong with two people of the same sex who love each other being together. But don’t call it marriage.
I think you’re confusing normal people, who believe in religion and have faith, with fundamentalists. Those are the annoying people (no offense) who believe that creationism should be taught in schools instead of evolution. There’s a big difference between that Christianity and my Christianity. Evolution could teach people who don’t believe in religion something as well. Take a dog for example: A dog is given a brain, which gives him everything he needs to survive. His mind can’t comprehend what a human brain can. It doesn’t need to. Humans are the same way. We can’t comprehend God because we don’t need to in order to survive.
Last note, I know enough about physics to know that the laws state that something caused us to be here. Nobody can explain how we got here. Physics is almost proof enough that there is something bigger than all of us who put us here.

Hope I didn't offend anyone.

Originally the "definition of marriage" was between a white man and a white woman; talking about blacks getting married at that time would ahve been as foreign as a gay marriage is now. Thus, the "definition of marriage" has changed before and can change again, and it should and will.

Unfortunatly offense has been taken.

Recently an article came out (I beleive it was in Discover or US Weekly) about theories of humans physically having genes that push them to seek something bigger, something greater. I know for a fact that I do not bear these genes (even though an estimated majority of people do). Perhaps this is why I am so doubtful in the exsistance of anything supernaturally controling out lives. And as for these things you have wittnessed and experianced? What are they? This god has never been there for me. Nor for the people I love. And the way things are going in this world I don't see any evidence supporting the exsistance of any good natured god.

World War II is no example of trusting history. My point was not the fact that I wasn't there to wittness it. Of course World War II happened. Both of my grandfathers were in it. Millions of people died (which is well documented through pictures, videos, and numerous censes's). World War II was a well documented event. As were many, many other events throughout history. But the Holy Bible is not. I find it rather hard to believe many, many, many things in this book. How is it that some random rural farmer in Israel (who was high off his fermented rye bread) well document an event? Especially when he can neither read nor write. And even telling what he saw to someone who did know how to write doesn't mean he would tell the whole truth. He would exagerate. It would be in his human nature.

Quote

Elaborate.

Quote

It wasn't. I find it rather disheartening that you would say this. You, yourself proved my statement that these stereotypes still survive today. If you had read the difinition I had posted on the subject Wicca is "a religion influenced by pre-Christian beliefs and practices of western Europe that affirms the existence of supernatural power (as magic) and of both male and female deities who inhere in nature, and that emphasizes ritual observance of seasonal and life cycles." Oh, yes. Evil to the core! Don't piss off the tree! It might smite you!! Its evil you know.

Gay marriage. Who are you, who is anyone to define somthing like marriage.

Quote

Right on TJ. Very well stated.

Oh. By the way. What does physics have to do with biology? Biology seems to state that it is possible for us to exsist. But who says that science can prove anything right? Why not just jump blindly?

While you do have some good points Moon, and while I do still love you, and while I really would rather not piss you off, I just have stand up for this.

vecoriwen, on Jan 4 2005, 10:20 PM, said:

The Old Testament was probably passed down verbally for several generations before someone wrote it down, leaving - as you pointed out - a lot of room for people to reinterpret stuff.

That doesn't mention how the Romans, the monks, or other people (King James for example) have rewritten sections of the Bible to such an extent that many people don't use the original version of the Bible. King James especially edited, deleted, and added portions so that it fit what he wanted it to be - and I think that's the most used version in America.

Some people find it hard to trust such a document because so many people have changed it to reflect their interpretation that its difficult to determine what really happened and what was said. Much more difficult than something well-documented, such as World War II.

Very true, Avatara.

Quote

Actually i don't believe in history. to paraphrase the old saying (Napolean I think it was) "History is writen by the victors." So there are many was to interpret history. I my American history class, I delibrately take the opposite view on almost every (the exceptions is the Civil War, slavery, and WWII). When we are asked to write essays about various things, others write about how this war was important and how that person was such a great man, I write about how that war was petty and unnecessary and that man was a bigot.

Quote

Again this doesn't apply to me. I do not believe government should recognize marriage at all. Instead, it should have civil unions availible to whatever couple wants them, and then, if people feel the need to sanctify and call their union a marriage, they can have it done by some sort of religious group.

I don't dispute that religion can be important to people. I just have a problem when people use that religion *coughLifeKnightcough* as a sheild for being stupid, close-minded, bigotted, and hateful. (of course none of that applies to you just a few members of this board)

A few of my usual points, I can elaborate on any that anybody would like.

Religion: Beliefs are good and religion is fine, but using religion to justify anything at all on a scale any larger than an individual is unacceptable. I believe in ultimate personal freedom and, thus, any organized religion's prescriptions for society only serve to limit one's natural ability to do as one pleases and gain maximum benefit from that which we have been provided with. I myself am a philosopher who bases his beliefs about the nature of being on a combination of traditional Buddhist philosophy, Epicurian and Stoic ideals, and my own common sense. I do not expect for others to live the way I do, but I do believe that one should think critically of one's own beliefs and be able to justify all of their beliefs in a structured argument while making no appeals to a higher power as justification for any belief they hold.

Gay Marriage: Nobody should force their ideals on others and certainly shouldn't justify such actions upon what are, by definition by being either religious or prejudicial in nature, illogical grounds. Personally, I believe that the entire institution of marriage exists for the sole purpose of placing limitations on the participating parties' lives. It is a contract stipulated by our religion-based society, pure and simple, and is a waste of time and money.

Evolution: There has been no credible evidence to demonstrate that the theory of evolution doesn't hold true in regarts to every known organism on the face of the planet, ever. Any other conclusions one could come to about the origin of species has been shown to be totally illogical in every aspect.

The Old Testament: There are two creation myths in Genesis which contradict each other, how can that happen?

The New Testament: Written decades after Christ died in another tongue, edited/translated numerous times, numerous books of equal merit of the ones included arbitrarilly discounted and removed from the canon by a high church official who lived centuries after Christ in Egypt. Peter couldn't write letters, entirely iliterate. Revelations to John written by a different John than the book of John, even though they lived in the same city, at the same time, and there are no records of the Revelations John ever existing, but "they both definitively existed." Establishes Jesus as a devout Jew and follower of John The Baptist, not a reformer at all, certainly not the head/founder of a religion. Earliest accounts of Christ's life make no mention of any resurrection (you can see the progression of elaboration and embellishment just by going through the Gospels), "father" used as a metaphor. I could go on.

As usual, I don't seek to piss anyone off, but feel free to bitch at me all you'd like, I'll take no offense.

-Pufer

The Real Darth Bob, on Jan 5 2005, 03:31 AM, said:

I'm willing to accept that. Newton's theories of gravity are best-guess models that seem to fit what we can observe. Then again, they work with Newtonian Physics, which Einstein said were not always the case.
Atomic Theory... well, back before 1911, we all believed that atoms were lumps of largely positive stuff with bits of negative stuff embedded in them. Ever since we actually started doing silly things to them, we've worked out that they're tiny lumps of largely positive stuff, surrounded by vast amounts of empty space, with lumps of negative stuff whizzing around them.... yet each of these lumps of stuff are made up of smaller particles. Who knows whether the work at CERN or Culham, or other such institutions may come up with something new that causes us to challenge this view?
Quantum Mechanics, Relativity - again, it's a good guess. When someone builds something capable of moving faster than light, I'll guess we'll know one way or the other.
Plate Tectonics - I believe we've proven. I also remember reading stuff on the breakup of one of the plates back in '95. That said, there is always room for improvement.

You get the idea.

The Real Darth Bob, on Jan 5 2005, 03:31 AM, said:

So, you're saying that I'm afraid of the dark and have no explanation for the unknown? Whilst I'll accept passing off a lot of science as theories (hell, I've done the math behind them - when you get to the atomic stuff, it stinks), I'll not accept the idea of religion or faith being outdated.

moonunit4eva, on Jan 5 2005, 04:23 AM, said:

I'll come to this later.

moonunit4eva, on Jan 5 2005, 04:23 AM, said:

I think I could learn to like you...

The Journalist, on Jan 5 2005, 04:35 AM, said:

I seem to remember someone saying that there is neither Jew nor Greek, Hebrew nor Gentile, black nor white... and that was long before anyone even dreamed up the USC.
Besides, marriage is something that affects a fair proportion of the 6bn people who call this planet 'home'. I don't understand why we should use the USC's definition of anything.... but that's another discussion which I really don't want to get into.

vecoriwen, on Jan 5 2005, 05:20 AM, said:

Speaking purely for myself on this matter... it's about the way you perceive things, it's about faith. While I was walking around Bow Lake in the Rockies this summer - probably the most beautiful place I have ever seen - I could see the evidence of God's hand all around me... same when I'm walking through the hills and valleys (or possibly cwms) back here in Wales...
And then times in my own life where I have felt truly God's presence - at a convention a few years back, sat on the beach here in Aber one evening last year... I wasn't drunk, I hadn't been taking drugs... maybe science has a way to explain what I felt and heard, but I know what I believe it was.
And then the far more numerous occasions where I've felt God speaking to me one way or another. Again, one of these things that science will explain away as my mind sorting through information it's received... but I know what I think it is.

vecoriwen, on Jan 5 2005, 05:20 AM, said:

OK, let's look at this somewhat more objectively, shall we.
- December 2004. Bloody great earthquake and tsunamis in south-east Asia. You'll probably find that every man, woman, and child on the planet knows about it by now.
- September 1939. WWII officially starts. Only people in the affected countries and those surrounding them really knew about it. People in the middle of the South American rainforests... nope. We still have a load of documentation about it.
- April 26th, 1916. A group of people led by Padraig Pearse wanders into the post office in Dublin and claim independence from England. In the UK and Ireland, it's well documented... how many Americans are likely to know dates and names?
- September 2nd, 1666. A baker's shop in Pudding Lane catches fire and leads to the destruction of most of London. Our only really reliable records are those of Sir Samuel Peyps.
- June 19th, 1215. King John and assorted Barons sign the Magna Carta. We have four (count them) solid pieces of evidence that this happened.
- sometime in the 1st Century, AD. A party was thrown by the wife of the commander of a Roman garrison of Hadrian's Wall. Number of pieces of evidence: 1
- 1010-960BC. We're pretty damn certain that Solomon was King of Israel. Evidence, very sketchy, but it's widely accepted as the truth.

Yes. WWII was a well-documented event, but I'm pretty damn sure that the Great Fire would have been pretty well documented... as well as the Magna Carta, or the birthday party of the commanders wife at Vindolanda. Strangely enough, the further back in history we go, the less the evidence becomes. In the case of the party, there is one piece of evidence (I know 'cuz I've seen it several times, I even have a photo), it doesn't mean that we should doubt the authenticity of that evidence. Yes, there's not huge amounts of evidence that currently exist for much of what happened in the Bible. It doesn't mean that (a) there wasn't more nearer the time, and ( that we should doubt what little does exist.
Heck, the OT is probably the only bit of solid historical recollection we have that describes the events of that era - so why the need to throw it away. Strangely enough, it's also accepted and believed by three of the world's four major religions. Curious that, eh?

It's worth pointing out that I threw the birthday invitation in there for a reason. There are two reasons that things may not be well-documented.
- they happened so long ago that a lot of the documentation has been lost/destroyed/reused as toilet paper.
- they weren't considered to be of huge significance at the time.
I think I've addressed the first, but the second... Most people will remember September 11th, 2001 for one thing. I don't. I remember it because I spent the entire day with a wonderful woman who had just admitted that she loved me as much as I loved her. There are only 5 people who could give undeniable evidence that this was the case, and you'll probably find that 4 of them would probably say "well, it was Elizabeth...", and the fifth (me) would probably have to admit that they were right.
Does this lack of evidence, and the possibility of the evidence being slightly incorrect mean that the event didn't happen? I bloody well hope not.

vecoriwen, on Jan 5 2005, 05:20 AM, said:

I believe I was the one who originally brought up physics... and I did so because it's what my training is in. I gave biology up as soon as I could
'Sides, physics is kinda the 'root' science, if that makes any sense. Chemistry is built on a lot of physics, and biology is kinda-sorta built on both. It's also the science with the loads of math which doesn't really add up except by general consensus.

Anyways, we don't need any kind of science at all to "state that it is possible for us to exsist (sic)"... leastways, I don't need science to tell me that it's possible that I may exist

Pufer, on Jan 5 2005, 06:29 AM, said:

Oh, bury that argument already - I'm sick and tired of people dragging that through the mud at every possible opportunity.
The important thing that the beginning of Genesis has to say is that God created the world. How... it doesn't really matter. It could be that "7 days"* is a metaphor for several millenia (after all, a thousand years is like a day to God, right? It could be that it was created in a large explosion (big bang, anyone?), it could be something different. It doesn't matter.
There is another put-down for that argument which explains the seeming contradiction, but it's still missing the point, and it's messy. I'm not going to bother.

Pufer, on Jan 5 2005, 06:29 AM, said:

... yet people still look at textbooks about WWII, WWI, the Industrial Revolution, the American Civil War, the War of Independence, the English Civil War, the Magna Carta, the Domesday Book, 1066 and all that... even though they're being written up to a thousand years after the event and say that they're solid fact.
I'm pretty damn sure that my housemates Thees (German) and Tanvir (Bangladeshi) don't discount the textbooks that the uni tells them are useful because they're written in something other than their native tongue. I know I certainly don't discount an astronomy textbook I've used for writing various bits and pieces because it contains translations from Spanish, German, French... or whatever the heck else people choose to write their observations in.

--

This is fun, and it means I still have reason to avoid writing this essay. Yay!

-Jon

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

I know I only defend the various scientific theories, when they are attacked by psuedoscience, which in my definition includes trying to add a diety to it, since they exist outside the laws of science. If better theories come up that have more convincing hard proof, I'll accept them.

Also I was always under the impression that objects traveling beyond the speed of light violated Relativity and, so finding or building something that does would be the best proof that relativity was false. Until then I'll keep lovin' it.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

I am not saying that is what you think. I am saying that is what the early humans who first started superstions that evolved into religions thought.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

What about eliminating government calling marriage entirely as I said earlier.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

See what I'll say bit below "I'll agree with you here..."

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

To be a bit nitpicky:

Four Religions with the greatest number of followers:(In order)
1. Chirstianity (A touch under two billion)
2. Islam (A bit over a billion)
3. Hinduism (A Bit under a billion)
4. Buddhism (Somewhere about 360 million)
5. Sikhism(Around 25 million)
6. Judism(Around 15 million)

So by numbers alone the four major religions are Chirstianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. So unless you are saying that either Hindus or Buddhists believe in the OT that might not be entirely correct. So it is 50/50 in the top four and, if you add all the numbers about 50% of the world's population believes in it.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

I agree with you here. No one is going to change people's entire belief structure by chatting over the internet.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

I read somewhere about how the phrase seeming to indicate days in Hebrew could also be translated order to disorder the nth day[/i]. Not that this has any significance to me but I thought I ought to throw it out.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

See the above example I cited for one thing. Translation itself is a tricky business (look at on-line translators for an easy example) especially when the translators are trying to promote a particular view point. Look at a our translations of Ancient Greek texts, the Illiad and the Oddyssey in particular. When the monks were copying these works down there is stong evidence that they delibrately changed parts of it that were thought to be "too pagan," which caused parts of these works to be lost. (I believe, but am not sure, that the evidence for their original content comes mainly from Byzantine and Arab sources, but I would need to check with my English Teacher)

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 04:00 AM, said:

OK, I'll grant you, for the purposes of the argument, that it doesn't matter how God created the world. But then what proof do you have to back up the "fact" that God created the world? The statements contained in a book which may contain entirely worthless and contradictory stories that explain stuff that "doesn't really matter?" Someone else's assertion that they've received the word from some higher power? Traditions of imperfect humans known to be prone to embellishment, especially over millenia?

My point is that the Old Testament has nothing to do with concrete fact and should not be treated as if it did or used to justify anything which calls for empirical evidence.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 04:00 AM, said:

It does matter if one was to believe that the Old Testament consists of God's honest truth.

If you believe the Old Testament consists entirely of factual occurances, the contradictory creation myths in their entirety (How are women created?) in Genesis cannot be overcome. If you believe that the Old Testament is open to interpretation, you essentially discard anything contained within for the purposes of argument.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 5 2005, 04:00 AM, said:

WWII happened, as did WWI, the Industrial Revolution, the Civil War, the War of Independence, and the English Civil War. The Magna Carta was certainly written. Facts can be collected and confirmed about these events. Want to prove that there was a WWII? Talk to a veteran. Want to prove that the US gained independence from England? Along with being self-evident, it is also established by thousands, if not millions, of legitimate period documents pertaining to the war. Want to prove that Jesus of Nazareth walked on water once upon a time? Read the current edition of the most mistranslated text in the world originally written by somebody who may or may not have existed who claimed to have heard about the event a hundred years after the fact.

I knew Stalin, he was a super guy. One time he gave a poor leper a Mercedes and his personal rabbit fur hat. How do I know this? Somebody told me. How did I know Stalin? I was one of his good buddies, plus he appeared to me when I was washing my truck one day and told me to write this stuff down. How do I know this is true? Stalin did exist and I just wrote this story down, have some faith man!

-Pufer

The Real Darth Bob, on Jan 6 2005, 06:27 AM, said:

Oh, I'd agree with that.

The Real Darth Bob, on Jan 6 2005, 06:27 AM, said:

OK... so I forgot the proportion of who believes in what... Still, 50% of the world's population believes this stuff... I go back to my original point

The Real Darth Bob, on Jan 6 2005, 06:27 AM, said:

I'll give you that point, although online translation and real-person translation aren't really a fair comparison (it's the difference between rule-based and knowledge-based reasoning).

Pufer, on Jan 6 2005, 06:29 AM, said:

You miss my point. There is an explanation for why Genesis seems to contradict itself (I asked my minister once... I may have regretted it afterwards), but to all intents and purposes, it doesn't really matter for someone's understanding of what Christianity is all about. It's like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Anyways, the best bits of Christianity are in the New Testament...

Pufer, on Jan 6 2005, 06:29 AM, said:

OK, I actually read the beginning of Genesis again last night, and compared it with the notes I found on a typical "theism is not a viable proposition - look:" page.
Concerning the creation of women, Gen 1:26-8, it talks about men and women being created - not how. In Gen 2:4 - 25, it recounts how men and women were created. As far as I can find, there are no contradictions about when or how Eve was created, especially when you read it in context.
I should mention that I'm using a version of the Bible that has been recently (1987) retranslated from the earliest Greek and Hebrew sources by some of the best linguists around (purportedly). Anyone who says "well, the AKJV says..." - I own a copy of the AKJV and I quite like it for various things. It is, however, a somewhat biased translation and the style in which it is written ("... and the LORD did henceforth proceed unto Jerusalem and did proclaim ...") makes it hard to understand what it's saying at the best of times anyways.

Another thing that's worth pointing out is that whilst the Old Testament - as with any historical document - is open to interpretation, we shouldn't totally dismiss it as a work of complete fiction. It is, after all, one of the very few pieces of documentation about very early Middle East history, and is widely accepted as truth. I'm not talking Genesis, or the prophesies at the end (or even Psalms, Proverbs, or that lot), I'm talking the historical books - Kings, Chronicles, Samuel... that lot. I've yet to find anyone who can manage to disprove Solomon or David.

Pufer, on Jan 6 2005, 06:29 AM, said:

You completely miss my point, Pufer.
The reason I can be so damn sure that WWII happened is because my grandfathers were involved and I hear the stories. On top of that, I grew up 3 miles from one of the UKs largest naval bases = major target for the Germans = lots of bomb damage. The evidence is overwhelming.
Want to prove that in 1776, the US claimed independence... it's somewhat more difficult because you don't have any eyewitnesses around. Sure, the US is independent from the UK, but maybe it always has been independent, and the whole "war" thing was because the English tried to invade (hey, they're good at it, the bastards), and the people at the time decided it might be fun to skew it - thus giving birth to the Great American Ego Tr... er.. Dream. The fact that it's widely accepted doesn't entirely prove much, as you've argued about Christianity.
But yes, there is an overwhelming stack of evidence that it happens.
But 1215... the Magna Carta. No eyewitnesses, and the only contemporary evidence that - I believe - exists amounts to 4 items. The rest is stuff written decades or maybe centuries later saying "in the year of our lord 1215, ye Prince John verily did sign an accord with the barons of this kingdom, who henceforth did swear fealty to him"*. Who's saying that it wasn't some wonderful trick played on us by some 14th century poet/writer who got bored.

The arguments sound ridiculous, but they're exactly the same arguments that you're using. Yes, we have very little contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence. It was 2000 years ago, before anyone had invented CD-ROMs with a shelf-life of several millenia. Yes, the Egyptians invented something akin to paper, but the only evidence we have supporting it is stone engravings which we can only translate thanks to another stone engraving (again, I've seen it) - the paper itself has long turned into compost.
The Bible is the only eyewitness account that we have... and it's longevity and survival can be explained by the fact that the people who constantly re-wrote it over the years believed it to have been of earth-shattering importance, just like I do today. The fact that it has been retranslated over and over again (in my case, from as close to the original as exists) doesn't alter the fact that Luke (for instance) was, in his time, a well-reguarded historian, just like Pepys in the 17th century... or that he probably wrote much of it either at the time or soon after the event. (I did a bit of digging, and apparently, Revelation was written around 100AD. OK, so this was 75 years after Jesus' life on earth, but ... uh ... it doesn't concern Jesus' life. Not really. It concerns what is to come)

Much of what we know of the destruction of Pompeii in AD79 comes from eyewitness accounts... Sure, we can go dig it up again, but the only way we know how it happened (with pyroclasts and all) is because we've read people's accounts of it - often retranslated. Why, then, should we disreguard the eyewitness accounts as laid down in the New Testament?

-Jon

* see, I can write in AKJV english as well...