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

Because the eyewitness accounts laid down in the NT (the ones that matter anyway) are completely unbelievable, we know it must be false. When was the last time you saw someone get up and walk around after being dead for three days? It's called faith because their is no proof.

I liked Vec's point. If Jesus exists, then how come he never comes here? If he loves us enough to die for us then why doesn't he just try to help us out? It's pretty convenient that god will never prove he exists. That would be exactly what I would have my god say if I were going to invent a religion

I honestly believe that religion can be a great thing, however I also know that mankind has showed that it is absolutely incapable of handling religion safely. In responce to this, you might be tempted to say something along the lines of "But I don't use it for evil". Now, if I had an atomic bomb, I would never even consider using it. Even if I could do it, and I and everyone I cared about could escape, I still would never consider it as a viable option in any senario, and I'm quite sure that you all would do the same. Now imagine if everyone on the planet were given one. How long do you think all our lives would be? Indeterminately short. But why? We were all good people, and we would never use them. Religion is so dangerous it should be kept away from humanity for it's own good. Sure a bunch of people go to church and feel moved be the spirit of god, and for them it's good, however, their are people who use the power of religion for unspeakable evil. It is simply to dangerous to touch. (Evidence of this is available everywhere. Even the cruci-fiction of christ is based on religion. Wasn't it the Pharaces who wanted him dead?) (Watch a movie called Inherit the Wind, read a book intitled "Under the Banner of Heaven", then maybe you'll understand what I mean about religion's power.

Quote

Every time I get into an argument/debate/discussion/whatever with people regarding religion, they always pull some variation of the quoted statement out of their sleeves whenever I get to an argument they have heard two or more times before. This time I'm going to say it. I'm sick and tired of religious people dodging legitimate attacks on their shoddy beleif system by saying that an argument is overused. Why don't you just try to come up with an effective defense? If the answer to that case happens to be "because there isn't one", then maybe we should be looking at this argument more closely, because it seems to prove you wrong. (by the by, I had never heard the argument about two creation myths before, and I've read the bible. I guess it isn't dragged through the mud at every possible opportunity)


Looking at this, I realize something. Man am I flamebait.

This post has been edited by FlamingGodSmiley: 07 January 2005 - 02:46 AM

FlamingGodSmiley, on Jan 7 2005, 07:46 AM, said:

Prove it.
How do you know that someone didn't come back to life after appearing to be dead for 3 days. I mean, hell, the newspapers over here are currently running two stories about women who have conceived after being told that they couldn't. We had a girl at my school who was in a coma for 5 years. Medical science said that the plug should have been pulled after one, and if she had come round, she'd have been severely disabled. She came round, and last thing I heard, was planning to run the marathon to prove she could.
A good friend of mine was told that he'd never walk again following a car crash... and I'm going hiking and climbing with him later this year.

My point... we have no proof that a guy called Jesus didn't appear to resurrect someone who'd apparently been dead. We have no proof that the same guy didn't cause a lame man to walk... and I know that I've seen people run and walk when they logically shouldn't have...

On top of that, if Jesus was God's son, and God is all-powerful, what is stopping him from doing things that aren't easily explained. It is, after all, what this 'miracle' stuff is about.

FlamingGodSmiley, on Jan 7 2005, 07:46 AM, said:

*Jon sighs*
Christianity says that God will help us - as long as we ask. You want real-life proof... I know that in my own life, things got way the hell easier for me when I said "Ok God, what now" and did what He seemed to be telling me. It all seemed way easier when I asked for help.
Yes, that's faith-based proof, but if you don't got faith, and refuse to accept that faith is valid, then there's no point in anything

I could get into a discussion about this here and now, but last time I did, it came out at several thousand words long... so I'm just going to link to an email I sent to a friend where I address the subject - read it here.

FlamingGodSmiley, on Jan 7 2005, 07:46 AM, said:

So, because a minority misuses something and turns it into a tool of hate, let's stop it entirely, despite the fact that it gives hope and joy to countless millions of people. Hope that this life isn't all there is, that there is some reason to be nice to each other, that things actually matter.
I'm not denying that people do especially evil things in the name of religion, but you must realise that what they are doing is not what the religion is all about. Take the KKK for example, and their main aim was to eradicate every black person from the face of the planet because they were ... an abhorrence. They did it in the name of Christianity.
There is nothing in the Bible that says that people with a different skintone from you are any different. Quite the opposite:
- "...And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself'." (Matt 22:39. Jesus talking about the greatest commandments)
- "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28)
... I believe there was a guy called Martin Luther King who based his mission on this idea.
Same with everything act of hate that is claimed to be done in the name of religion. I've read the Koran, there's nothing in it that promises a place in paradise to those who smite the unbelievers - it's very similar (in fact, the same) to the Bible on that respect.

The plain and simple truth is that people will find reasons to commit crimes of hate whether religion exists or not. Because religion exists, people will do things because they have the very core beliefs of their religion fundementally f*cked up, and they will do what they do in the name of religion. If it wasn't for religion, they'd say that something else was responsible.
Religion, however, does give hope and joy to millions of people. Yes, the world is evil, but religion gives an alternative to evil - it gives us something to live for, some hope that there is something other than selfish pride in this world, it gives us a reason to do good things, to actually aspire to do something worthwhile rather than riding rough-shod over anything in our path.

To deny religion denies belief, and without belief, this world is a hollow and empty place.

FlamingGodSmiley, on Jan 7 2005, 07:46 AM, said:

Well, I used it in that case because the argument against religion used (multiple creation stories) was so bloody transparent it was as though nothing was there.
The fact is that so many arguments used to disprove the bible (or at least throw it into disrepute) are so hollow and so useless that I'm amazed people waste time using them. I mean, Pufer came up with the thing about the creation of women, so I spent two minutes reading one of my copies of the Bible, and the answer was sat glaring at me. Most of the so-called 'valid' arguments can be solved with an open mind and actually reading what's written, rather than parroting the same old bull time and time again.
And yes, as a young Christian, I've heard every single argument that is used against the Bible time and time again, and I'm fed up with sitting down and explaining the same blindingly obvious points repeatedly, when the questioner could have sat down and worked it out for themselves if they weren't so hung up on the fact that it's got to be wrong. I certainly know that if there's an question I can't answer, I'll say that I can't answer it and go ask someone who might be able to.

-Jon

Quote

I did?

Oh and yes I have read the bible, along with the Qu'ran and the Vedas and I am currently reading various Buddhist texts.

The Real Darth Bob, on Jan 7 2005, 07:21 PM, said:

Apparently so... oops.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 6 2005, 06:51 AM, said:

I’d argue that what Christ himself would have accepted as the truth regarding the nature of creation would certainly be applicable, but I’ll let this point drop at that.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 6 2005, 06:51 AM, said:

He created male and female in Their own image in Chapter 1 and woman as a derivative of man in Chapter 2. If you take it for what it says, women are created independently in Chapter 1. Also, who is God referring to when he uses "our" and how is it that he can walk among the gardens later on in Genesis? Looks to me as if there are many gods and they can take human form which is certainly rejected by the Judeo-Christian traditions even though their holy canons have it in there.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 6 2005, 06:51 AM, said:

I’m not saying that it is entirely a work of fiction, I’m just saying that too much license has been taken in interpretation in the past and has tainted much of the historical record. The Bible is one of the earliest records of the Jewish exodus from Egypt, but, as many Biblical scholars will tell you, Moses, assuming he existed, lost the Egyptian armies in a big marsh full of reeds because he knew a path, not by parting the Red Sea, a long-standing mistranslation. It just sounds better to screw with the word meanings in translation (red and reed do come from the same stem, it’s only context that tells them apart, the Red Sea wasn’t known by that name for one hell of a long time after the Jews would’ve been crossing it, it could, however, be metaphorically translated as “a sea of blood” or “a bloody field” (as in a battlefield), what is translated as “sea” could roughly mean “marsh,” “field,” “many,” “area,” and “place,” amongst other things, what is translated as “parting” could be better translated as “showing the path,” not to mention that going south to the Red Sea would be one heck of a detour, the marshlands near Suez would be a much easier way to get to the other side).

As to your version of the Bible, I assume you’re speaking of the NCV (the only one I can think of that would have been published around 1987, there may have also been a revision of the Catholic bible that year also, but I’m not sure, do correct me if I’m wrong ) which states quite openly that they’ve screwed with both the wording and the images contained within so that they may be more readily understood by the masses (essentially an “Americanized” Bible). If you are using the New Century, I’m not trying to insult your choice of Bible, it’s just that it really isn’t more accurate or less tampered with than any of the other modern translations (AKJV is one, the new Catholic thing is another (I really should get the name of that)).

Jon Pearse, on Jan 6 2005, 06:51 AM, said:

There are four original copies of the text of 1215 and thirteen legit, original copies of the original all dated 1297 or earlier (one of which is in a case in the US National Archives right next to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). British Chronicles of the time also referred to it repeatedly (especially in 1225 when the final revision was finalized, but also in 1216 and 1217 when the first two revisions took place) all the way up to the present.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 6 2005, 06:51 AM, said:

Actually there is a fair bit of legit evidence of Jesus’ existence and we have found traces of Egyptian papyrus paper. Remember that Jesus was kicking around during Roman times and we have actual, physical Roman scrolls dating from well prior to his birth as well as transcribed records from the area. Also, most CD-ROM’s won’t be functional a couple hundred years from now, much less in a few millennia, but now I’ve gotten off the point.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 6 2005, 06:51 AM, said:

Nah, it’s all hearsay. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren’t kicking around with Jesus. His disciples perhaps, but not Jesus.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 6 2005, 06:51 AM, said:

Mark was the earliest being written sometime between 65-75CE, it was used, along with the Gospel of Q (50-70CE, likely the most accurate depiction of Jesus’ life, yet it has been lost), as the basis for Matthew (70-85CE) and Luke (around 90CE). John was written between 85 and 100 (except for Chapter 21 (if I remember correctly) which was added later) by numerous authors (but primarily by some guy named John in Northern Egypt). The first copy that we have of the Greek New Testament hails from sometime around 350CE, a little over 300 years after the fact (we have a few scraps of an early version of John from 125CE, but they are held by scholars to be more convoluted than our own version of John 2000 years after the fact, we have evidence of all four gospels by 250CE, but that’s still over 200 years afterward) additionally the 27 books only were finalized sometime around 400CE. There is also no widespread acceptance amongst scholars about who Luke was (the leading propositions have him as either a lay-physician or a fairly well-read traveling partner of Paul in his later years, I’ve never read anything about him being any type of historian).

The fact that we don’t have any record of the writers’ credentials (Matthew, Luke, John), knowledge of their specific existence (John), the accuracy of the first versions we have when compared with the 200 year old originals, the accuracy of the finalized New Testament written 350 years after the fact, or the imperfect nature of all (granted, some more than others) modern translated forms of the New Testament leads one to question the validity of what is presented within. In essence it take a leap of faith just to accept the accounts as truthful before you can take the leap of faith to believe in Christ, if you can do this, good for you, but none of it meets the burden to constitute scientific or even historical fact and thus cannot be referred to in an argument which requires such evidence.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 6 2005, 06:51 AM, said:

First off, because they’re not eyewitness accounts. Secondly, a vast majority of what we know about the destruction of Pompeii comes from geologic evidence we’ve examined during its excavation and by looking at Versuvius. For all intents and purposes, all we ever knew from eyewitness accounts was that Versuvius blew up and buried some place called Pompeii.

Again, I'm not trying to attack Christianity or the Bible, I'm just pointing the fact out that it can't be used as definitive proof of anything at all.

-Pufer

This post has been edited by Pufer: 07 January 2005 - 06:30 PM

Pufer, on Jan 7 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

Point, but I don't recall Jesus explicitly saying how the universe was created other than the fact that it was created by His Father.
The point I made about it not being important is that it's not worth arguing about how, when there are far more substantiative points that are made in the Bible. Yes you can argue about it for weeks, but it isn't really going to improve much of your understanding of Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam... not really.

Pufer, on Jan 7 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

If I remember correctly from what I was told about this when I asked much the same question, the use of the plural when God is talking is a later reflection of the idea of the Trinity - three in one... even though the idea of a trinity is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible (the three seperate components, however, are). Either that, or it's used in the "royal 'we'" sense. I forget... if you're curious, I'll fire an email off to someone who will know.
As for God Himself walking in the Garden, God manifesting Himself as a man isn't an unknown concept in the Bible, is it? (see also the New Testament)

Pufer, on Jan 7 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

There is a theory that states that Moses led the children of Israel across a sandbar in what was known as the Reed Sea, which has later been identified as the Sirbonis Lake, which is an area of water in northern Sinai between the Nile and Palestine, seperated from the Mediterranean by a narrow bridge of sand... which fits the story rather well.
The second half of this theory times the explosion of the island of Santorini sometime in the C15th BC - both the Bible (1 Kings 6:1) and various Egyptian records suggest that the Exodus and the explosion happened at similar times. The explosion would have caused tidal waves, and as we know from recent events, before a tidal wave, the sea appears to recede quite a distance and return with a vengeance. The theory states that the Israelites got to the sand bar as the water receded, crossed, and the Egyptians got squished in the following tidal wave. Maybe not as dramatic as enormous walls of water, but it's feasible. It's also worth pointing out that Egyptian records also appear to correlate the ideas of various plagues as described in the Bible, many of which are similar to those experienced during a distant volcanic eruption.

And then there's the other option - that Exodus (the book) is right, that there is a God, and he parted a sea exactly as described

Pufer, on Jan 7 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

The NCV it is. And they've not so much "screwed" with words and images, merely tweaked them into language that you or I might understand today. I know enough about the differences in language to know that there are some things that a direct transliteration will not uncover (go see the note about the use of the verb 'to devote', used in reference to Jericho... I'm kinda glad they've tweaked it some).
It's not a perfect translation, but it's way the hell better than the GNB (of which I have a copy), and clears up some of the mistranslations in the (A)KJV, and quits couching everything in 'old' English, for which I am also duly grateful. I have copies of all three on my shelf here (which reminds me, I need to get an NIV at some point), and if I'm doing serious studying, I use all three, generally with more emphasis on the NCV for most of the stuff, the AKJV for some clarification on quantities (ahh, the difference between 'thee' and 'thou' is useful sometimes), and the GNB just for contrast. It's quite a nice way to work.

And if it's the same over here, the 'Catholic bible' is generally known as the Jerusalem Bible, and I'm not entirely sure that I like it as a translation.

Pufer, on Jan 7 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

I'm being corrected on British History by an American [where's the damn emoticon when you need it]. Mea culpra.

Pufer, on Jan 7 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

Hrm. I've been told about him being a historian several times from various sources... I'll have to go check them out again at some point.

Pufer, on Jan 7 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

I beg to differ. I believe there is one eyewitness account that describes the eruption in great detail.... although I've not studied that area of history in any great detail for some time now, so it could be that my mind is playing tricks on me.

Pufer, on Jan 7 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

Hrm. If I gave the impression that the Bible was definitive proof for anything, then I apologise. Like I said right at the start of this little discussion, as with any kind of belief system, looking for definitive proof to show to others is impossible. I have things in my life which I perceive as definitive proof for the existance of the Judeo-Christian God - science may well explain them away as something else, but I believe that what I have experienced proves that my faith is correct.
When it comes down to it, the only real definitive proof will come when we die and find out what actually happens - whether we meet God, or whether that's it... all over. By that time, it's really a bit late, though

'Sides, the way I look at it is that my faith has meant that I am - and will continue to be - generally nice to those around me, and even if what I believe proves to be wrong, it's still given me hope for the world, and kept me going along a fairly positive track. I may have entered the world with nothing and left with much the same amount, but if I had a positive effect on those around me, I wouldn't call my faith a bad thing, would you?

-Jon

I have a feeling the plural isn't being used as a royal "we." The royal "we" is used to refer the myself and God, when the ruler claims divine appointment.

But then also I doubt that it implies a polytheistic sense.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 7 2005, 06:55 PM, said:

The actual reason is that the Judeo-Christian tradition began as a combination of pluralistic, primitive religions and Genesis is left over from that (one of the first books written in the canon). The concept of the Trinity didn't show up until Christianity started up and didn't affect anything (as is shown by seeing that the Torah can also be found to say "we" and "our"). The Trinity explanation is, however, the traditional Catholic line on the subject and is as close as I've ever heard anybody come to explaining it in the Christian tradition.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 7 2005, 06:55 PM, said:

There is something wrong with God himself taking human form having to do with the Holy Trinity, but as I can't remember all the particulars, I'll not go into it. The Catholics either use it to demonstrate why much of the Old Testament can be discarded in lieu of the New or say that the God walking around wasn't actually in human form but represented the embodiment (in a purely non-human sense, of course) of the Holy Spirit. The truth of the matter is that some early Jews actually held that God was shuffling around with man in human form and it stuck around, once again, in Genesis (this group of beliefs also may have inspired the Greek Gods' ability to take human form).

Jon Pearse, on Jan 7 2005, 06:55 PM, said:

I've always thought of that theory as much too complicated, at least the timing of the tsunami aspect. Santorini certainly explains the plagues and is widely held as the real historical evidence to back it up. Unfortunately, Santorini is the wrong type of volcano to spew out huge clouds of ash prior to its explosion so the "plagues" would've occured well after the Hebrews' escape thanks to the tsunami, messing up the Biblical order of things. The tsunami would've, however, left large inland marshes behind for a period which would've filled rapidly with reeds, which, after the plagues convinced the Egyptians to let the Hebrews go, would have offered shelter for Jews hiding from Egyptian armies (especially if their leader knew a path ).

Jon Pearse, on Jan 7 2005, 06:55 PM, said:

If you happen to find them, do bring them to my attention. I have no doubt that he has been proported to be a historian at some point, I've just never seen any arguments for it.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 7 2005, 06:55 PM, said:

I was referring to the Gospels being written by eyewitnesses with that first statement, sorry if that wasn't clear. You are entirely correct as there is, in fact, quite a lot of first-person evidence of Versuvius' explosion in Roman records, including the story of one person who supposedly viewed the beginnings of the eruption then outran the subsequent pyroclastic event (who I believe you're referring to).

Jon Pearse, on Jan 7 2005, 06:55 PM, said:

I sincerely hope that you're right about there being an afterlife (if there is, I'll meet you there), but as a Buddhist and a Epicurean philosopher, I fully expect there to be nothing but total annihilation awaiting us on the other side of death.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 7 2005, 06:55 PM, said:

No I wouldn't. A little faith never hurt anybody.

-Pufer

After page 2 I stopped reading. Nice to know that all the ideas from just chat have been seeping down into the other boards. I myself am a conservative christian who goes to a very liberal school. I am in the minority and such to the point, I understand how their minds work fairly well. I would spend more time argueing, but simply put it is pointless. Mentioning the word creation seems to insight attacks from many closed mined people (forget about reasoning the vast evidence supporting it, oops that was stating my beliefs). A couple of other points I will give before condemning this topic and never returning. First, proving the existance of lack of existance of God is impossible. This is for many reasons, mainly though it is because our minds are limited. There for we cannot comprehend something that is limitless. Also, we are fallable, meaning we cannot comprend something that is perfect. It is truely base on faith however I will point out that if you believe that there is no God, and that existance is a completely indifferent anomally, then you deny the idea of purpose. I choose to believe that I existance does have a purpose and therefore believe in a God.

On the topic of evolution and science in general I would point out that because human understaning is imperfect we will always have an imperfect knowledge of the universe and imperfect models to describe its processes. Evolution itself has many holes mainly dealing with microbiology and physics. Infact many of the "accepted" beliefs of the past have come into question including the constant speed of light, the accuracy of time dating techniques, and the effect of gravity or the lack of it through out the universe. Yet, I accept the fact that I am not P.h.D in this area and will leave its discussion to those with more knowledge on the subject than myself. I would reccomend all of you do the same until you have at least a B.S. in biology, physics, chemistry, etc...

I would plead with all of you that you let this topic die and take it to the Just Chat section where a thousand topics just like it have been posted. Discussions like these cause much more distruction to the common good than they solve problems.

I quite like this topic Swithich, because, unlike its Brethern at just chat (and with the exception of Flaming God Smiley) it has not and probably will not degenerate into a flamewar mainly because LK and zwworm aren't here with their tiny closed minds and prophecies of doom to all who disagree with them.

Secondly I object to your stating that we, who have not recieved university degrees yet should not participate in scientific discourse. I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about certain aspects of science and read Nature, Science, Scientific American and other well respected and scholarly scientific periodicals to keep myself informed. When I encounter something that i have no background knowledge about and so cannot understand I take the time to visit the Public Library, which isin walking distance, or the undergrad library at the university, which is also within walking distance. Thus I have aquired enough information on various subjects that I believe I can talk about them.

Lastly, I also consider myself well versed in world religion to speak about it. As I mentioned earlier I have read the Bible, the Qu'ran, and the Vedas, and am reading Buddhist works currently. Along with that I have Karl Marx and other political philosophers of all part of specturm and this think I am qualified to speak about those issues.

There is not a place on ATT for mindless flame wars like on Just Chat, however well thoughtout reasoned debate certainly is in order.

My school is the exact opposite of yours. Most people there are highly conservative. I think that my liberalism came predominately from seeing my homosexual friends insulted and how bad that made me feel to see them picked on thus. Because of that, and various other expierences, I cannot ever understand what would make a person cling to conservative philosophy.

This post has been edited by The Real Darth Bob: 08 January 2005 - 02:08 AM

In an intended polite response who those who believe they have felt the presence of god: Do you perhaps recall when you were young and believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairies and the like? Perhaps you remember lying in bed on Christmas Eve thinking you heard a sound and you knew without a doubt in your mind that it was Santa Claus in your living room? Sometimes you hear, see and feel things that you want to experience and is not actually a matter of them actually occuring. The main reason you believed in these things? Other people told you to.

Swithich, on Jan 7 2005, 10:46 PM, said:

How "their minds work"? I resent that.

Swithich, on Jan 7 2005, 10:46 PM, said:

Closed minded people? Ha. Hahahahah-HA! I find it rather ironic that you call "liberals" closed minded. 1. With so many people so consumed by their book that they refuse to take logic, science and common sense into consideration. 2. "Liberals" tend to be more opened minded than many other groups, at least that I have encountered (ie more accepting and more in favor of equal rights etc)

Swithich, on Jan 7 2005, 10:46 PM, said:

Agian with the "oh humans are so lowly" "humans are not worthy of God" and all of this nonsense. Why would god create somthing so unworthy of "himself" (assuming that god has a gender at all) and then stick around? Ego trip? Its just not logical. I believe our exsistance in this one universe of possibly many is complete probability. And with this incredible, mind-boggling probability it makes it even more amazing that I even exsist. Henceforth I do not find that my exsistantence is meaningless desipite the fact that I can sleep in on Sundays. I find that my purpose here is to experience our world and create an impact on other peoples lives.

Swithich, on Jan 7 2005, 10:46 PM, said:

Again with the imperfectness...

Swithich, on Jan 7 2005, 10:46 PM, said:

People will do anything to prove themselves right even if it means making things up and discrediting theories with more factual proof than they themselves have.
Time Dating Techniques? While its true that they may not be 100% accurate (I won't deny that) it is more physical, scientific proof than The Holy Bible provides. Yes, it also says that the Earth was created billions of years ago rather than merely thousands years, in contradiction to Genesis. And what about all the humanoid skeletons (here 12,000 years ago and here) they have discovered dating back from well over a thousand years ago?

Some more interesting links:

-- Jerusalem Post
-- Humanoid Fossils found in East Asia
-- Humanoid Fossils found in Australia
-- Why Homo Erectus was able to survive for 1.5 million years
-- Evolution
-- Cosmic Evolution

Just to reiterate: (if you havn't noticed already) I am one who perfers to base my beliefs off of logical, scientific and tangable (not necessarily all three at once, but at least two) evidance.

This post has been edited by vecoriwen: 08 January 2005 - 03:29 AM

vecoriwen, on Jan 8 2005, 08:24 AM, said:

Two points:
1) Sure, I was raised as a Christian, but that doesn't mean that I've always believed it. Trust me, there are times when having a God knocking around was what I really didn't want... and I still felt it.
2) Santa Claus, the tooth fairy - all fiendishly easy to disprove. You want me to explain why Santa Claus has to be a myth? No-one has disproven God. Maybe when someone does, I'll stop believing.

vecoriwen, on Jan 8 2005, 08:24 AM, said:

That's not what he said. He just said that our minds are limited and that we ain't perfect. You could argue the case that our minds are limitless and that we are perfect, but I don't think you'd get very far. Most guys have problems understanding women, for example... so what hope have we against an unlimited and perfect God?

As for "humans aren't worthy of God", it's mostly stuff spewed out by major Christian denominations to ensure their own security, and make their followers believe that they have to do things 'properly' to achieve 'salvation', whatever that may be... that we're not fit to approach God, but if we talk to a priest (who is somehow better than us... heh), they can talk to God for us... I believe I addressed this in my first post in this topic.

vecoriwen, on Jan 8 2005, 08:24 AM, said:

Vec, he's pointing out the truth. Human understanding is imperfect. How does gravity work - we don't know. What about special relativity, what does happen at the speed of light - we don't know. How about some of the things that happen several miles underwater... what exactly are they and how do they happen - we don't know. All we have is best-guesses based on our current understanding. Gee, before Rutherford started bouncing 10" shells off newspaper in 1911 (or somewhere around there), we still thought that electrons were large lumps of positive stuff with other negative stuff embedded in them.
Human understanding is limited, deal with it.

vecoriwen, on Jan 8 2005, 08:24 AM, said:

Actually, the idea that the Earth may be billions of years old doesn't necessarily go against what the Bible says. Genesis talks about 7 'days', and I read somewhere that the earliest sources we have use a word that better translates as 'eras' - we have 7 periods of time. That period of time could be fractions of a second, it could be many billions of years.

vecoriwen, on Jan 8 2005, 08:24 AM, said:

So, you're exactly the same as me, then.
Just remember that science is based on our understanding of what we observe. Just as the plum pudding model is ridiculed now, our current understanding of certain areas of science may be ridiculed later. Our perception of whether something is tangible or not depends on our understanding, and is also tainted by our beliefs. And whether something is logical... is entirely subjective anyways

-Jon

Wow. this swithich guy is worse then I am. What gives you the right to walk in here and try to offend as many people as you can, and then say this whole topic will degenerate into flames?

While we're on the topic of flames, I'll try to be a little better about it.


Sure, not everyone (in fact, very few people) use religion for evil. The problem is that when you believe in religion you are a follower. How do you think the evil people got the support they needed? Because the people in the religion are so used to following incredible -forgive me, but rediculous- things, that they won't stop. If you want an example of this, I suggest you take my earlier advice and go rent a movie entitled "Inherit the Wind". It's about the Stokes monkey trial. You know, that one where tennesee said it was illegal to teach evolution, and a guy did it anyway, and faced massive persecution from "good upstanding christians".


How can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist with an argument I couldn't use to "disprove" god? Same with Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or any of those things?


For the record, I've never met a conservative who was more open minded then I am, and I'm not open minded.

Jon Pearse, on Jan 8 2005, 06:13 AM, said:

That one always made me hungry in class

Well, all, it seems you've got yourselves a class 1 religious debate on your hands... I remember that I was birthed into the B&B in a religious debate. I was also scouted into Just Chat in a religious debate. I've participated in them from day one to day now and every day in between. I kinda showed up here to get away from that, but there's no shame in being chased no matter where I go; I guess it just follows me around

Now, while I've participated in these for years, my opinions on matters have changed, but I can tell you that I'm no closer to a definitive answer. I've gone from a theistically inclined agnostic to a tentative Christian, and when that didn't click with me, I've come to Judaism. I still have no idea how to make anyone else change, though

Let me, before I continue, commend mostly everyone here for maintaining the civility of the discussion. In my experience, no matter what the side, this is an issue we hold dear. It is close to our hearts and our minds at all times, be it in our belief, disbelief, or inability to believe. That's why it's so easy to get riled up and mad about it, but doing so would be useless. No one getting mad at you would make you think, it's the same the other way around. So, keep it going? At least get it through one cycle and think of it as a growing experience.

Science is great. I love it. It's wonderful that there are people devoting their lives to finding out how things work, and other people devoted to finding out how we can take those discoveries and use them to help people. That is admirable to the highest degree, and it is my sincere hope that the progress of science never stops. There will always be more to learn in an infinitely complex and vast universe (if that is, in fact, the case), so there's still plenty to do.

Scientific theories are based on current knowledge to understand and define current behaviors within the universe. Quite often, they're rather accurate in their descriptions of the universe that we know, but later on are discarded as innaccurate. Why? Did they suddenly no longer describe what they were describing? Not really, it's just that more information became available which the current model did not fit. Throw it back to the drawing board, incorporate the new information, and hey, look, we've got a new model. Just as Einstein trumped Newton with relativity and was later altered to fit more current information. It's not that the prior theories were wrong per se, but just that they needed some improvement or were incomplete.

Evolution is a theory. Both "just a theory" and a full fledged scientific theory. If you don't want to believe in it, that's just fine. I hold nothing against you, and it's not a magazine subscription; it doesn't need people to believe in it to be correct or incorrect. I personally put stock in it, because it feels right, it makes sense, and what I've read on that fits in with other stuff I've read. It also fits within my religious context (perhaps because my religious context came about at a later date than I learned of evolution?), as does the Big Bang. But I'm not sure we've got the specifics of the latter down yet (various alternatives, etc.). One incarnation that I like (mostly due to the way it sounds) is how occasionally in our universe we can find minute quantities of matter and antimatter just popping into and out of existence (I forget where I read this, Brian Greene perhaps?) on rare occasions. Perhaps they happened at the same time when there was no universe to speak of, and the resulting explosion of the two is the universe we see? Then again, it's not my place to actually make the theories, I just like to hypothesize.

God is an unknowable. This goes for if you believe or if you don't. If you don't believe, there's nothing to know, and if you do, there's too much to know. But neither view is empirically proveable. Pure unadulterated logic becomes the agnostic. But most of us feel, one way or the other. I've always felt a spiritual bend, my brother has always felt the temporal bend. Faith, I've found, regardless of which way it pulls, helps people. That's why we keep it around, it is useful. In hard times, it's nice to be secure in something, to be able to turn and know that you have the answer. If you are religious, oftentimes you will ask God for help, or otherwise you will see God's hand in your life. And this helps you to stand up, to walk that last step, to complete what you have to do. It's a good thing. If you don't believe, you'll be able to find strength in your confidence of the understanding of the universe. You'll take joy in the complete random that led up to your life and all the wonderful things that have come before and will continue to come, and this will give you the strength to finish up that which you must. Both are perfectly fine, and both help, so I have no problems with either.

Now I come to what really interested me about this religious debate: we're discussing history! As a history major, this is something close to me. As a person, I love history. Love it! With a passion. Not only is history completely unreliable and completely infused with bias, but it's one of the most necessary things for our societies. The divine strength and weakness of history comes from the fact that there is no such thing as objectivity. The weakness of it means that you can never get the whole story, but the strength of it is that it's ok, you wouldn't want to, anyway. Have you ever tried to tell an objective story? You can't leave anything out, that inserts bias. You also have to ensure that every primary character (animate or otherwise) has its story told so that the reader may understand fully its background. The retelling takes an exponentially longer time than the event itself. It's like the cartographer who makes a map of the universe, the size of the universe: completely unnecessary and wholely useless.

So we embrace the subjective, and yet we still look to be objective, or at least appear so. Get over it; you'll never be subjective when you're talking about the Magna Carta. Who cares how many pieces of evidence you have supporting it? We don't know what it looks like, we don't know the backgrounds of each of the supporting evidence. But what we do know is that it effectively existed as reported, because that's how the world has been changed. It's not so much the facts, but their influence that matters. Did I write a short story in 6th grade? Yes. Does it matter? No. Was Jesus the son of God? I believe not, but the effects have been resounding. It doesn't matter whether or not he was when talking about history, what's important is that so many people believe it passionately, and this affects things. It affects how people live their lives and how nations interact with each other, so it's worth knowing about, at least in that context. I've just realized how long this post is getting, so I'll cut it short. Let's just all not get so hung up on the facts, eh? There were more things than the Magna Carta going on in 1215.

Quote

Two things, 1 I said I was working on the flamebait thing, 2 I commend you in turn (or counter-commend if you prefer) for having tried things out. Most Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc. that I know/know of have never tried anything other then what their parents told them. My parents are both Quakers (obscure branch of christianity. Pacifistic, nice, not-biased) and it took me the first fourteen years of my life before I was able to think for myself enough to realize it wasn't for me, and I'm always feeling rather alone in that. Even most of the Atheists I know are just as brainwashed as everyone else.

Same kinda thing for me. I was an Episcopalian (Angalican Very Liberal). Until I began to read other things and form my own opinions.