Science vs Religion [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

Wahooo

2011-09-21, 06:28 PM

I would also state that a lot of the actual conflict arises because some religious folk view their holy texts as absolute fact and interpret it literally, which does not seem logically sound given that contexts change drastically over hundreds and thousands of years, as does human interaction. The context under which a text was written may be entirely different in the present day.
Not sure why I only snipped this part, I didn't want to re-quote the whole post but had a hard time picking out the exactly relevant parts.

Anyway the reason you are having such a hard time here is, there is really nothing about religion that is logical. You aren't supposed to change it to fit logic or meet with science. That is what faith is all about, unquestioning adherence to some illogical set of stories whose interpretation of the meaning changes, or rather classifies one denomination from the other.

1. If the Bible or other religious texts are/were the work of man, then they are inherently fallible and in no way are they fit to be the basis of a religion nor would they be authoritative on the wishes or intentions of God. If this is the case then the text SHOULD be questioned and SHOULD be changed and where it disagrees with what we learn through proper science then it should simply be modified or deleted. Good luck with that eh? At this point we can look at all the fallacies and inconsistencies we see in the texts and pretty much dismiss almost all of it in the name of logic and science and keep the good parts like don’t kill, don’t lie, love your neighbor… but not your neighbor’s wife that is a no-no as well. So in the end religion is a nice summary of rules on how to be nice. We may as well get Miss Manners to re-write the books.

2. If the Bible is the “inspired” word of God, then it is still a work of man, see above.

3. If the Bible is the true word of God then it is beyond reproach and perfect in every way. There should be no room for interpretation or issues of logic. God is by definition a perfect being incapable of error.

“Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

So God is aware of what will be, and therefore there should not be any need to “update” or interpret any of God’s word for a “more modern time” as he would be aware of these modern times and his word, being perfect will still hold true in this time and all times. We may need to dig and search and cross-reference the text to understand spiritual meaning within but every word of the Book MUST be taken as the pure word of God and read literally. If it is not then it is the work of man, and if it is the work of man… then see point 1.

So now the problem lies, does science disagree with the literal reading of the religious text? If it does, and the text is the pure word of God, then the scientific conclusions must be wrong. If the science is not wrong, then the text is in question. If the text is in question then how can it be the word of God, therefore the whole text is in question. If the text is 100% correct then every point of contention between the two pretty much turns up our whole understanding of the world and many different fundamentals of many different branches of science. I’d say that is a bit of a conflict.

Malorn

2011-09-21, 06:57 PM

Meh.

Accuser

2011-09-21, 07:21 PM

Let's put it this way:
A men wrote the Bible
B men are fallible
then
C the Bible may be flawed

More specifically though, I'm against the idea that God decided that adulterers should be stoned to death. Oh, but then He changed his mind and decided to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Where the hell was the compassion back before that? Did the omnipotent, eternal, unchanging, loving and just God wake up one morning and say "You know what... I think we've brutally murdered enough adulterers, let's stop that."

And Abraham... the founder of Christianity, Islam and Judaism... You see a guy getting ready to slice his son's throat open, you ask him what's up, he says "God told me to kill him". Call the cops? Try to save the kid? Hell no! Make him your religious leader!

Oh, and when he impregnates his two daughters, do you call Child Protective Services? Do you have him on Jerry Springer for having a F**KED UP family? NO! His sons are to be the kings of nations! And He surely is God's prophet.

And I'd like to see someone read Revelations with a straight face. John says "On the Lord's day, I was in the spirit" and goes on to say he saw a vision of Christ where "Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.'" Now if you ask me, "in the spirit" is one HELL of a drug.

And it's this ridiculous and self-contradicting book that we're supposed to acquire the wisdom of an eternal, serene, CONSISTENT, just and loving God? That my friend, requires faith.

EDIT:
Malorn: It seems that your point is that -most- of the Bible is good for society. Why would we expect a book directly inspired by an all-powerful and all-knowing God to be "mostly good"? I wouldn't expect God to lay out the scientific details of the beginning of life and the Universe to ancient desert tribesmen... but a consistent morality would be a damn good start!

And why would a God of the entire Earth (and Universe) only reveal these divine teachings to a fraction of humanity? The entire Western Hemisphere didn't learn about monotheism until a couple of hundred years ago! Why would God let them fend for themselves morally, if the Bible is the direct moral compass inspired by God?

Malorn

2011-09-21, 08:05 PM

Meh.

CutterJohn

2011-09-21, 11:31 PM

Religion = Why our universe exists, our purpose within it, and rules by which we should live our lives.

Why does there have to be a why? Why does there have to be some grand purpose to life or the existence of the universe? Why is a 2000 year old book better at telling us how to live than a popularly elected government?

Religion has always tried to say how and why. And at every step of the way, every point in history, its hows and whys have been proven wrong. Over and over and over again. I don't see much reason to believe its hows and whys on behavior and purpose.

Elude

2011-09-22, 01:18 AM

Science can be as easily compared to religion as it can to soccer or anything else for that matter. Science doesn't have to prove anything wrong in religion for it to be right, just because science can't explain why scores are kept or why there are opposing teams in soccer does not make it wrong.

Just trying to show exactly how silly the comparison actually is, we might as well ask the question... How fast is the letter A?

Vecha

2011-09-22, 03:05 AM

Also, science is never based on Faith, and religion is. Main conflict thar'...

I'd say some science is based on faith...

A theory starts out as a belief and a faith that you will be able to prove it.

Are you familiar with tectonics? (might be spelling it wrong).

At one point...a section for scientists flat out didn't believe that they earth was always recycling the crust...another group did believe...but did not know how to prove this theory...

Eventually they were able to by taking samples off the earth's ocean floor in several places...

But I digress...

The point is..before they can prove...they must believe.

Baneblade

2011-09-22, 03:47 AM

Well now....

Religion really doesn't need the help of science to be invalidated, but then again the more knowledge the common man has, the less they need supernatural explanations for everything.

However the primary attraction for religion is the transferring of responsibility for situations. People take comfort in the idea that everything is 'god's fault'.

Crator

2011-09-22, 07:44 AM

Perhaps my comment was a little simple. Let me make it more sophisticated.

Science uses the scientific method to prove things. Religion follows blind faith, because there really isn't a way to test the things written in the bible.

CutterJohn

2011-09-22, 07:46 AM

The point is..before they can prove...they must believe.

Believe brought about by the misinterpretation of evidence is fundamentally difference than belief in the absence or even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Individual scientists can be obstinate and make wild claims based on little, or poor, evidence. They recognized this own fault among themselves centuries ago, which is why the scientific method has error checking procedures built into it to minimize the effect of bad evidence, bad procedures, and poor logic.

A scientist can fool himself, or let himself be tricked, but science can't be, not for very long. Young scientists love nothing more than proving the old geezers wrong.

Firefly

2011-09-22, 08:53 AM

Why is a 2000 year old book better at telling us how to live than a popularly elected government?
It started out that a popularly-elected government used that 2000yr old book to form the basic set of principles with which to govern, or rather, tell us how to live. But that's beside the point.

The point I wish to make in all of this is, why is a popularly-elected government better at telling us how to live than a 2000yr old book? I mean... I don't know about you, but my government isn't exactly doing a sterling job here. We're in massive debt; our politicians are worse than the Pharisees, Saducees, Romans and **** mentioned during the time of Jesus; and in order to remain a safe and inviolate nation we have troops all over the globe and the Patriot Acts I & II but yet we have hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants coming across our borders with practically free reign, and some of them are smuggling drugs and weapons into this country. How the fuck is THAT safe and inviolate?

Malorn

2011-09-22, 09:59 AM

Meh.

Malorn

2011-09-22, 10:12 AM

Meh.

Wahooo

2011-09-22, 10:59 AM

I don't know of any Jihads, Crusades, mass gedocides or ruthless dictatorships coming to power in the name of Science.

Malorn

2011-09-22, 11:54 AM

Meh.

Crator

2011-09-22, 12:49 PM

Yeah, but I don't discriminate. I don't agree with either group. Spirituality is much more a personal deal, and I get that.

Wahooo

2011-09-22, 02:02 PM

I don't see any charities, shelters, and support intitutions in the name of Science either.
But religious institutions don't have a monopoly on these either. I'll give in that yes they have done a lot through history on this front but it is not exclusive to religious groups either.

Science isn't a religion. It isn't a replacement of a religion. It's simply a logical means by which we study our world.
And that is all I need. I'd love it if religious zelots understood that science isn't a religion, and most scientists don't treat it as such.
However, science is used as an excuse by Atheist missionaries in their quest to attack other religions, persecute their followers, and push their ideology, which makes them no different than the religions which they so hate.
And by attacking and pushing their ideology do you mean such hate filled things as defending evolution and trying to keep such crack brained ideas like "intelligent design" out of public schools? Maybe some individuals attack religion and try to justify their attack in the name of science but the scientific world really does not give a rats ass about religion until it starts to interfere with and fuck up with scientific education.
Persecuting others simply for having a religion or particular ideology with no other reasons than that is still the property of the religious. It seems to be part of that whole faith stuff.
.

Crator

2011-09-24, 11:14 AM

Ah, the brain is a wonderful and mysterious thing.

Firefly

2011-09-24, 11:39 AM

I was raised in a rather non-denominational background. My mother is Jewish. My father was raised Episcopalian, became a Presbyterian, then Baptist, then Methodist. He eventually became a Methodist minister when my parents divorced. During my upbringing, they gave a decent effort at educating me on the various tenets of their faith. I did not, at any point, feel that religion was shoved down my throat. I had the option of saying "I'm not going". I identify as Jewish, having had a bar mitzvah and time spent in a Jewish school.

I am more of an agnostic than anything. I don't know what's out there. My faith says that I'm going to heaven as long as I'm not an evil douchebag. So I live my life as best as I can, doing what I think is just, right, and moral as it pertains to myself, my sons, and everyone around me.

The one thing that I absolutely cannot stand are people who try to convert me to their cause with in-your-face antics and, when they fail, mock whatever beliefs others have because they aren't *theirs*. A few random Christians have done this to me. It's annoying. Shut up. I don't run around saying "We killed your lord!" so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the proselytizing. This includes militant obnoxious atheists. I know there are a few atheists on this board and you're just going to have to try and not get butt-hurt when I say this, *IF* you're the militant type that runs around mocking people for their beliefs: what you do is your business and what I do is mine, so respect that. You can be an atheist all you want. That's fine. I don't care. I don't try and convert you or lecture you on hating G-d (which is dumb since you can't hate something that doesn't exist, I know, I get it) or how you're going to Hell, or how you shouldn't say goddammit if you don't believe in G-d. So I'd appreciate very much if all the atheists out there *WHO ENGAGE IN THIS BEHAVIOR* would kindly stop being a bunch of elitist snob jerks by saying shit like "oh, silly Xtians with your fiction book". I get that you probably were tormented by the local Christian Bible-thumping Squad down deep in the Bible Belt. I'm not them. So be the better man along with the rest of us. Because nothing is more annoying than some hypocritical self-righteous asshole saying "DON'T THROW YOUR RELIGION IN MY FACE!!" and then turning around and throwing their lack of religion in someone else's face.

Live and let live.

Bags

2011-09-24, 12:01 PM

oh, silly Xtians with your fiction book

Raymac

2011-09-24, 02:53 PM

oh, silly Xtians with your fiction book

No need to be that disrespectful of somebody's faith, dude.

Growing up in Catholic schools, I've evolved an interesting view on religion. I very much consider myself Catholic and I always will be, however, I do have issues with some of the dogma of the Church. Quick example, I think women should be allowed to be priests, and I also think that the Church will eventually allow women to become priests. The Church just moves at a much slower pace than the rest of society, and I actually firmly believe that it is good to have a counterweight to the fast-food knee jerk society that we have become today.

That means I believe the Church has their heart in the right place, they are just slow to make any changes at all. I mean the were saying mass in Latin up through the 1960s. LATIN. So, they change, just on a different timeline.

Also, I don't really like the title of this thread. I don't like to look at it as "Science vs. Religion", I view it as "Science + Religion". Considering how difficult it is to prove a negative, as much as science seems to want to try, they will likely never be able to prove that God doesn't exist.

I believe there is room to have faith and follow the teachings of Jesus, but still not turn a blind eye to the scientific discoveries made every day. My personal belief is that Jesus had a few main teachings:
1) Love God (whatever form He may be)
2) Love your neighbor
3) The spirit of the word is more important than the letter of the word.

To point #3, this is where I think many religious people lose their focus. It doesn't take a genius to twist words around to mean something different and totally contradict points #1 and #2.

Bottom line is, I don't judge people based on their faith (in God or lack of god), but I judge them based on how they use that faith to live their lives. I think it would be hilarious to see Pat Robertson and Bill Maher meet up in hell.

Sirisian

2011-09-25, 01:07 AM

The one thing that I absolutely cannot stand are people who try to convert me to their cause with in-your-face antics and, when they fail, mock whatever beliefs others have because they aren't *theirs*.
I've been on a campus for a while since I work at a University, and this is very common. I always see the pairs of Mormons walking around talking to people. I got stopped by two of them and just listened to them and answered their questions. Interesting folks since they believe so strongly in what they're saying. It's not really worth anyone's time expressing your views to them since they're very set in their ways. I did get a laugh from them though since they asked "What would you say is the meaning of life?" and I was like "scientifically? Live to the age of reproduction and pass on your genes. A more relaxed answer? Make the most of things while you're here" and they stumbled. I think they expected something else, but I'm not sure what the normal response to that is.

I don't really deal with religion. All my friends are secular so religion never really comes up.

The only thing that bothers me is when religious people become political. I prefer politicians to take the Spock approach and focus on logic.

On the topic of science vs religion I don't really think they're against each other so much as Science has a nasty habit of proving religion wrong. The whole Earth is at the center of the universe deal with Galileo and the Church are the kind of troubling things. I'm just glad instances like that are less likely nowadays. That kind of stuff doesn't even really occur between all religions either. Some are a lot more open to change which is nice to see, but it also really makes me question why people would hold onto something that can change at a whim. The blind faith idea I have a really hard time buying.

On a side note I've taken a lot of history classes and it's odd seeing how religion has been used to control people through churches. Not all religions are like that but it really makes you question the validity of churches and their purpose. (Eras of divine rule, etc). Russian history in particular is full of this power of the churches idea in relation to blood lines and other connections. I think religion might have just been a really nice way to explain things back in the day, but it's just not standing on the same ground that once did. That is science is providing more answers than religion and will continue to do so.

Until the human brain is unraveled and things like "what makes up morality and choice" are answered, I think people will still turn to religion wondering why they find some things immoral while others moral and what that means. (Though philosophy has always tried to take that place as a more "scientific" approach).

I'll stop now since my view is kind of biased, and I don't want to offend anyone.

Effective

2011-09-25, 04:24 AM

Couple of things, atheism isn't a religion, some very outspoken anti-theist/atheist (Hitchens, Dawkins, and a few more) do attack religion on a constant basis though for a variety of reasons. Also a theory is not the same as a hypothesis.

First we have to examine WHY a belief in a God/Gods exist.

The most likely possibility (to myself at least), is that supernatural beings were created to explain natural phenomena that were unexplainable at the time, such as lightning, storms, the stars, etc. God is often used (and still is today) to explain the unexplainable, this is called the God of Gaps.

Religion (most notably the Abrahamic God) has attacked scientific discovery and free thought for centuries, with unbending and outdated moral/ethical values that don't evolve to match an evolving society. Not to mention religion was often used to control the poorly educated masses by causing fear. "If you don't do X then you will burn forever in hell" etc. Science has continued to prove religion incorrect on matters related to the physical world for a few centuries now.

As an agnostic atheist (yes it is an actual stance), it seems to me that IF a God/gods exist, they don't care one tiny bit about this tiny speck in a back water solar system in a unremarkable galaxy.

We as people are better off teaching our children about empathy then teaching them about religion, they are almost guaranteed to turn out less dogmatic and more inclined to use critical thinking when using the thought process.

Ultimately my lack of belief is created by a simple concept, no evidence for the existence of a God/Gods. Also, I don't believe that religion is a bad thing, only when is starts to become corrupt form of controlling people.

Evilmp

2011-09-25, 05:56 AM

Just one thing:

You can't argue with an entity that makes up new "facts" to counter reason.

It's idiotic to try as every debate turns into a stalemate.

Alright, one more thing:

Religion, by default, is a control. I've not seen a religion that doesn't have some sort of punishment if you stray.

You don't need anyone or anything to know right from wrong.

Firefly

2011-09-25, 08:19 AM

Couple of things, atheism isn't a religion
I put it in the category in which most people file it under: "religious belief" because the opposite of religion is having none. It's pedantic semantics, really. Technically, your race is human but I bet when you submit paperwork you define your race as black, white, Asian, Arab, Pacific Islander, whatever. That's an ethnicity and skin colour.

Side (irrelevant) note: whenever I see that block on paperwork I put down "other" and write in "human".

Crator

2011-09-25, 08:21 AM

Side (irrelevant) note: whenever I see that block on paperwork I put down "other" and write in "human".

Nice! I'm going to have to start doing that :) I hate racism.

Effective

2011-09-25, 11:44 AM

I put it in the category in which most people file it under: "religious belief" because the opposite of religion is having none. It's pedantic semantics, really. Technically, your race is human but I bet when you submit paperwork you define your race as black, white, Asian, Arab, Pacific Islander, whatever. That's an ethnicity and skin colour.

I just kinda consider along the same lines that if atheism is a religion, then not collecting baseball cards is a hobby

Firefly

2011-09-25, 03:52 PM

I just kinda consider along the same lines that if atheism is a religion, then not collecting baseball cards is a hobby
The word "atheist" and "atheism" is derived from the Greek word "atheos", which means "without god". It does not mean, per se, that atheism is a complete and utter lack of spiritual, religious, or deist beliefs. There are atheists who are spiritual/spiritualists. There are atheists who are irreligious, which does not necessarily mean without religion - it can also mean you are indifferent towards religion. There are certain types of religions which are classified as an atheistic religion - Jainism, which is kindness towards all living things, and certain types of Buddhism, for example. They are still religions, despite being atheistic in nature. Ultimately, because it is NOT a specific type of religion, it is up to the individual how to interpret their beliefs. There's no First Atheist Church of Springfield where all the little atheists go to sing "Amazing Lack of Grace" and "The Old Rugged Cross Never Existed". So you as an atheist or I as an atheist determine what our beliefs are.

You can define it how you like, but because it deals with religious beliefs (zero is still an integer, as it were) it is considered a religious preference for the purpose of indicating what your religion is. Ironic: you have no religion, you're atheist, but the fuckers on Facebook still have it listed as a religious choice. :lol:

duomaxwl

2011-09-25, 10:36 PM

Science. I believe in the big electron. It just is. :groovy:

2coolforu

2011-09-26, 02:46 AM

The word "atheist" and "atheism" is derived from the Greek word "atheos", which means "without god". It does not mean, per se, that atheism is a complete and utter lack of spiritual, religious, or deist beliefs. There are atheists who are spiritual/spiritualists. There are atheists who are irreligious, which does not necessarily mean without religion - it can also mean you are indifferent towards religion. There are certain types of religions which are classified as an atheistic religion - Jainism, which is kindness towards all living things, and certain types of Buddhism, for example. They are still religions, despite being atheistic in nature. Ultimately, because it is NOT a specific type of religion, it is up to the individual how to interpret their beliefs. There's no First Atheist Church of Springfield where all the little atheists go to sing "Amazing Lack of Grace" and "The Old Rugged Cross Never Existed". So you as an atheist or I as an atheist determine what our beliefs are.

You can define it how you like, but because it deals with religious beliefs (zero is still an integer, as it were) it is considered a religious preference for the purpose of indicating what your religion is. Ironic: you have no religion, you're atheist, but the fuckers on Facebook still have it listed as a religious choice. :lol:

It's a religious choice because you can choose to have no religion or have one, that's the choice on the Facebook status thing. Anyway any spiritualism is added onto atheism, atheism as you said is just 'no gods'.

Quovatis

2011-09-26, 01:50 PM

Being able to say "we don't know (yet)" is a big part of science, but not religion. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean a god is the default explanation.

Lonehunter

2011-09-27, 04:06 PM

I don't see any charities, shelters, and support intitutions in the name of Science either.

I really like that line, lol. But if said charity isn't based on any religion does that make it count towards science? There just aren't many scientific breakthroughs in charity work, I'm just saying that's an "apples and oranges" statement

Wahooo

2011-09-27, 06:15 PM

I really like that line, lol. But if said charity isn't based on any religion does that make it count towards science? There just aren't many scientific breakthroughs in charity work, I'm just saying that's an "apples and oranges" statement

Not shelters, but many non-profits are based on medical research which is close. MDA, Heart Association, many cancer research and many non-profit low income housing groups. As I said religions do their part, but hardly a monopoly.

Krowe

2011-09-27, 06:27 PM

MadPenguin

2011-09-28, 06:29 AM

Religion, imo, is a decent way to have increased self-esteem and to meet other people with similar beliefs.

Science, on the other hand, paves the way for newer ways to make life easier, more productive, or entertaining.

When I consider these base concepts, I honestly believe they have no room to meddle with each other or even attack each other, simply because in the end they have different core objectives.

Another way you might give someone self-esteem is to convince them from an early age that when they hit about 30 they will become some sort of super-human/super powered thing. Sure, they would feel better about themselves.

By your logic science can have nothing to say about the truth of this idea because they have "different core objectives".

Similarly, would you use that reasoning to defend astrology? It might have different core objectives, that doesn't mean science can have nothing to say about it.

Crator

2011-09-28, 11:02 AM

Another way you might give someone self-esteem is to convince them from an early age that when they hit about 30 they will become some sort of super-human/super powered thing. Sure, they would feel better about themselves.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The reason is because once they get to 30 and they realize they don't have super-human powers one comes to the conclusion that they've been lied to. At this point they reject the people/ideas that fed them these lies. Same thing happens with religion.

Sirisian

2011-09-28, 02:38 PM

MadPenguin

2011-09-28, 02:43 PM

Crator

2011-09-28, 02:46 PM

Didn't really bother me when my parents lied about Santa, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Also no one would fall for that super-human stuff at 30. It's a bit unrealistic.

I think we are talking about something a little bit more deeper then silly icons that bring us things during holidays. And, are we really talking about being "bothered"? I just said, "Rejecting the ideas". So you haven't rejected the ideas of Santa or the Easter Bunny after a while?

Crator

2011-09-28, 02:49 PM

Its just an example :). The reasoning holds, if you dont like this example i will refer you to the astrology example, people go to their graves believing that stuff and it makes them feel better.

No, I understand what you mean. But, that concept only works on young kids, like you said. Not sure what we are debating here really.

MadPenguin

2011-09-28, 03:44 PM

Not sure what we are debating here really.

Thats how most of these discussions end up :rolleyes:

Lonehunter

2011-09-28, 05:20 PM

Going back to Science vs Religion, how many wars have been started for Science/Research/technology (how ever you want to word it)? I'm not saying every war was started because of religion, but it usually plays a big part in preventing world peace.

Firefly

2011-09-29, 07:00 AM

I disagree wholeheartedly. The reason is because once they get to 30 and they realize they don't have super-human powers one comes to the conclusion that they've been lied to. At this point they reject the people/ideas that fed them these lies. Same thing happens with religion.
You're presuming that religion is completely false and that all religions are built upon lies. Considering that not all religions have the same beliefs, and that not all of them revere the same deity (some don't even revere ANY deity), I'd have to say this is a stupid presumption. Forgive me if I misinterpret what you've said.

The bottom line is this: anyone telling you that G'd is real is a liar, or is misrepresenting themselves, or is speculating. They *THINK* that G'd is real. Since nobody in living history has seen Him, sat down and had a beer with Him like He was Barack Obama in the White House garden, the skeptic in me is forced to err on the side of caution. Did G'd come over to Little Johnny's birthday party? No. Did He crash their bar mitzvah like Me First & The Gimme Gimmes? No. Did He show up as special guest on Conan O'brien? No. Is there a G'd? Maybe. You may BELIEVE. You may have FAITH. But you can't prove it one way or the other.

Conversely, anyone telling you that G'd is fake and never existed is also a liar, or is misrepresenting themselves, or speculating. Did they get in a magic fucking spaceship and fly to Heaven-land on the Highway to Heaven with Michael fucking Landon and Victor French? Did they get on the starship Enterprise with Captain Kirk and Spock's brother Sybok like in Star Trek 5 and warp-speed over to the centre of the universe? No. Did they drive by His house and sho'nuff, no lights were on at the Pearly Gates? No. Call His house and someone named Lupe answers and said "no dios aqui!"? No. Is there NOT a G'd? Maybe. You may BELIEVE. You may have DOUBT.

Nobody knows for sure. And that's the cold, hard truth. Everyone claiming one way or the other just wants you to "see the truth" and play for their team, or they're a charlatan. Take your pick. It's up to each person to decide what they believe.

Baneblade

2011-09-29, 09:53 AM

The very definition of Ignosticism right there... a magazine I subscribe to incidentally.

Crator

2011-09-29, 10:07 AM

You're presuming that religion is completely false and that all religions are built upon lies. Considering that not all religions have the same beliefs, and that not all of them revere the same deity (some don't even revere ANY deity), I'd have to say this is a stupid presumption. Forgive me if I misinterpret what you've said.

Don't put words in my mouth. I was responding to a post about fairy tale characters (Santa and Easter Bunny). I presume nothing about other religions. I simply conversing on unfounded beliefs from the bible (not even a religion thing now) that people try to pass off as truth.

Quovatis

2011-09-29, 11:00 AM

Saying god is fake isn't being a liar. There is absolutely no evidence for a god. Would you call someone a liar if they said unicorns are fake? You could say that about anything.

Crator

2011-09-29, 12:22 PM

That was never said. I did state that saying god is real is being a lair. You got it twisted somehow.

Quovatis

2011-09-29, 12:24 PM

My response was to Firefly, sorry.

Sirisian

2011-09-29, 01:35 PM

I think we are talking about something a little bit more deeper then silly icons that bring us things during holidays. And, are we really talking about being "bothered"? I just said, "Rejecting the ideas". So you haven't rejected the ideas of Santa or the Easter Bunny after a while?
Yes, but I didn't reject the people that told me those ideas. It also didn't lower any false hope or destroy any morals that were created. (Better to have given than to receive etc). The point though is that the good ideas don't die when the lie does. Religion in a way is like that to a lot of people. Even people that reject it earlier in life. They don't normally reject the underlying teachings or the people. They just reject the parts they want to. (Deities and spirituality, for instance in my case). I digress though. I hope you can make the connection between what I said and how to "give someone self-esteem" like MadPenguin said. (You don't lose the self-esteem when the lie dies basically).

To relate that to science would probably take some psychology.

Crator

2011-09-29, 02:08 PM

I'd imagine you may be surprised that it does more damage then naught. Never did I say that people were rejected, only the ideas founded on blind faith. I suppose there are many situations that have occurred that would mess up relationships between people, depending on the situations that those people went through together.

Firefly

2011-09-29, 05:44 PM

Saying god is fake isn't being a liar. There is absolutely no evidence for a god. Would you call someone a liar if they said unicorns are fake? You could say that about anything.
You'll note multiple options in there.

Quovatis

2011-09-29, 06:00 PM

You'll note multiple options in there.

Ok, well, I still don't get what you're trying to say then. You said anyone saying there is no god is a liar, misrepresenting themselves, or speculating. Give an example where they might be lying. What do you mean by misrepresenting themselves? For speculating, I agree. But again, that can be applied to anything else that is nonsense. I'm speculating that there isn't a teapot in orbit of Jupiter. I'm speculating there is not such a thing as unicorns. I haven't seen a unicorn or surveyed every inch of the area around Jupiter, but I'm about as certain as I can be that they don't exist. When someone says there is no god, that's what they mean. They mean they are as sure there is no god as they are sure about anything else that has no evidence. Could there be unicorns, a teapot around Jupiter, or a god? Possibly. We have no way of knowing FOR SURE, but without evidence for any of them, we can say colloquially that they don't exist. Most atheists are really agnostic, and even Richard Dawkins admits that.

Firefly

2011-09-29, 06:13 PM

We have no way of knowing FOR SURE, but without evidence for any of them, we can say colloquially that they don't exist.
We can call it whatever we like, colloquially or speculation or talking out of our ass or conjecture. At the end of the day, WE DON'T KNOW. Full stop. No caveats. You don't know, I don't know, and Joe Snuffy down the street at the local Pentecostal Holiness & Shitfire Church doesn't know, either.

THAT is my point. That's what amuses me about the whole debate. Nobody has any proof, and yet each side at various points goes screaming their heads off, getting defensive when their stance is attacked.

When science has enough evidence to prove whether or not G'd exists, someone call me unless I catch it on ThinkGeek. Science is growing in leaps and bounds. Everyone thought that because Einstein thought FTL wasn't possible, it wasn't. Until a bunch of Europeans proved him wrong a few weeks ago. So maybe one day, science will be able to come up with a way of figuring out the truth, pro or con. Until then, you're entitled to believe what you want to believe, just like everyone else. All this hullabaloo about he-said/she-said you're-wrong/I'm-right lalala-I'm-not-listening is stupid for everyone involved.

Traak

2011-09-30, 06:50 AM

People largely believe what they want to. I have seen people presented with irrefutable evidence of various things that just flat refused to believe it.

The will trumps reason every time. Audi Murphy went past reasoning and willed to do things that others could probably demonstrate with charts and graphs would not work.

The average person will face decisions through life that require a triumph of will or reason. Which they decide will determine their results. Like guys presented with video or photo evidence that their faithful sweetie is seeing others, and gets mad at the PI they hired!

Quovatis

2011-09-30, 10:59 AM

Science will never be able to prove god doesn't exist. God is an idea without testable attributes (except that there is no evidence whatsoever for a god). But science doesn't need to prove god doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the unbeliever. If I say I have an invisible unicorn that doesn't interact with its surroundings on my desk, it's up to me to prove that it exists. It's silly for everyone to assume the unicorn is there until it is disproved. Placing me, the "unicornist", on the same rational and acceptable level as the "aunicornists" is rather stupid. The unicornist view has no basis for belief until there is evidence to support it. The same logic applies to god. The theist and atheist views are not equally acceptable. Theists must prove there is a god. Atheists don't have to prove anything.

MadPenguin

2011-09-30, 12:01 PM

All this hullabaloo about he-said/she-said you're-wrong/I'm-right lalala-I'm-not-listening is stupid for everyone involved.

I just have to back up what Quovatis is saying here. Correct me if im wrong but if two people were having an argument about whether unicorns existed, you wouldn't be tempted to interrupt and use this line. If you joined in at all i assume you would back up the one arguing against the existence of unicorns. (despite unicorns not being disproved) Its one thing to say you cant prove God doesnt exist, its something entirely different to say you have any reason to believe in God.

The point is you are using one set of reasoning for God and another set for other things of the same nature.

Traak

2011-09-30, 12:40 PM

What I think is funny is the convolutions people will go through mentally to prove God didn't do what he obviously just did.

Such as life on Earth. God didn't create it, they say. It was marshmallow-throwing aliens from planet Zleeb who missed the fire, and one of the marshmallows fell on the ground and became our universe. Yes, see, you idiots who believe in God!

Or, atoms randomly decided to come together to create complex food webs where removing any one element would destroy the entire system, but somehow they up-evolved from atoms to entire ecosystems, unassisted.

I just wonder how termites survived without the bacteria in their GI tract that break down cellulose. Oh, that's right, anything is possible if you throw in a few hundred million years. So, given that there are roughly 11.3 million species on the Earth, and they started as one species, that up-evolved... how long did that take? and why aren't we being inundated with ever-increasing numbers of new species every year? Why do animals that live below a certain depth in the sea have colors that can only be perceived by someone with an artificial light source? What is the evolutionary purpose? How did clownfish survive before there were anemones? How is it that some nudibranchs move swallowed stinger cells from anemones to their surface to act on their behalf? What came first? The nudibranch or the stinging cell? And, how did the entire ecosystems around 400+ degree sub-oceanic vents get there? A tube worm randomly survived an accidental fall to that depth, laid eggs, and presto! an entire ecosystem sprung up that was completely co-dependent and cross-linked. Oh, yes, in millions of years. That's the ticket. It's ludicrous to believe that with God all things are possible, but the zenith of intelligent analysis to believe that with time, all things are possible?

The questions are rhetorical.

Evolutionists claim to be backed by science, but it is carefully selective "science". Darwin himself said that the idea that the eye could have evolved is ludicrous. But, again, the issue isn't evidence or lack of it. It's a decision of the will. The decision is,. most often, "I refuse to believe in God." The evidence is no longer the issue. It's the decision.

I have seen tons of evidence that proves God is real. I see new evidence daily. But, I don't try to convince people who don't care to hear about it. I just enjoy this life with God through Jesus Christ. Yes, both sides marvel at the other side and their choices, it's age-old. We preach to others that Jesus Christ came and died for your sins, and you can believe he is alive and ask him to be your savior and begin a life with him. The choice is up to you. God knows heathen "culture" is brought to us fresh daily from every available angle, so we also have the choice to abandon Jesus and pretend he doesn't exist.

As I said earlier, however, it comes down to choice. People believe in God or don't believe in him, and whatever they decide, they can stick with, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Crator

2011-09-30, 01:05 PM

Science is actually getting pretty close to an answer on evolution. Most major evolutionary stages occur when major environment shifts happen. So, let's say, a meteor hits the Earth and changes the whole atmosphere. The organisms adapt, evolve, to the new environments. A good explanation of this I've heard recently was trying to answer the question about why were the dinosaurs such large creatures. The answer that sounds very sound is that the atmosphere and surroundings at the time allowed them to be that large. But when a meteor hit the Earth and atmosphere and environment changed drastically thus evolving the remaining living organisms into something that can survive the environment. Of course these thing happen over long periods of time.

Geist

2011-09-30, 01:08 PM

I have read every post in this thread and something I've noticed is this isn't a Science vs Religion thread, it's a science vs God thread(and like others have said before me, no, god is not needed for a spiritual organization).

The OP is correct in many ways, Religion and Science should not be in conflict, yet people seem eager to do so anyway. Science is the observation and understanding of the laws of nature, while religion is the development of the spirit and a purpose to our lives here on Earth. Why should one disprove the other, when one is learning of the physical and the other being metaphysical, they are as opposite as can be.

The fact is, when religion strays into the realm of "how", it will always get beat down by science, and when science delves into the realm of why, it turns into religion.

On another note, in regards to the thousands of years old holy books, why anyone would take anything that old that has been rewritten and translated so many times as having any sort of literal meaning today is definitely mentally challenged somehow. Religion has always influenced a vast majority if people, and if someone wants power, and no one to question it, he says, " God said so." and how one makes sure it's a long lasting rule? Write it in a holy book. That's why, even if it was written by god directly, and was the most perfect written text ever created, it could not have endured that many years of human infallibility.

Quovatis

2011-09-30, 01:33 PM

What I think is funny is the convolutions people will go through mentally to prove God didn't do what he obviously just did...

Wow. Pretty much every example you gave has good explanations by science. Go to a natural history museum or read up on it. And your Darwin quote is just wrong. Please read the next paragraph after that in Darwin's book. The quote you took is out of context. Here is the next paragraph:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144) "

I guess you believe Einstein is a theist too because he said "God doesn't play with dice"? Many theist make that mistake.

I have seen tons of evidence that proves God is real.

Please share this evidence. I'm interested.

Traak

2011-09-30, 01:57 PM

Quovatis

2011-09-30, 02:06 PM

It isn't evidence someone who has made up their mind that God isn't real would believe.

You could bring someone back from the dead, and people will still not believe. Belief is more about choice than evidence.

I am open minded. If it is actual scientific evidence, I will not dismiss it. Please share.

If I saw a decapitated body suddenly come back to life, yes I would instantly believe in a higher power. But people do come back from the "dead" regularly with modern medicine. It's not a miracle.

Traak

2011-09-30, 02:15 PM

No, seriously, the usual response to "I saw this amazing thing" is
A ) It was fake
B ) It wasn't _______ in the first place
C ) They lied about it.

Or some such. What is funny, comical, though sad, really is watching people who HAVE witnessed or directly experienced something that provides irrefutable evidence, and they still just live as if God isn't real. Everyone still has a free will, regardless of external evidences, pressures, or rewards.

Baneblade

2011-09-30, 02:30 PM

Well if it was evidence, it would be fact based not perception based.

Wahooo

2011-09-30, 03:22 PM

I've noticed is this isn't a Science vs Religion thread, it's a science vs God thread(and like others have said before me, no, god is not needed for a spiritual organization).

We, need to better explain a religion maybe? Is one's self proclaimed spirituality a religion? What makes something a "religion".

Science is not in conflict with religion. The scientific method is in conflict with many aspects of many religions that stray from what some here are saying the point of a religion is, defining the why's in life, or listing our moral values so we all get along nicely.

Crator

2011-09-30, 03:23 PM

Eyewitness events are typically inaccurate.

Sirisian

2011-09-30, 03:30 PM

Eyewitness events are typically inaccurate.
That's why science is mostly about reproducible experiments. Like "hey I observed a particle going faster than light in my lab!". Then someone else will go "oh cool. Let me try to reproduce it". If you can't reproduce it then it isn't really science. (Kind of the pedantic definition one learns in school).

Crator

2011-09-30, 03:42 PM

Correct

Vecha

2011-09-30, 03:44 PM

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s10e13-go-god-go-xii

CutterJohn

2011-09-30, 07:50 PM

The bottom line is this: anyone telling you that G'd is real is a liar, or is misrepresenting themselves, or is speculating. They *THINK* that G'd is real. Since nobody in living history has seen Him, sat down and had a beer with Him like He was Barack Obama in the White House garden, the skeptic in me is forced to err on the side of caution. Did G'd come over to Little Johnny's birthday party? No. Did He crash their bar mitzvah like Me First & The Gimme Gimmes? No. Did He show up as special guest on Conan O'brien? No. Is there a G'd? Maybe. You may BELIEVE. You may have FAITH. But you can't prove it one way or the other.

Conversely, anyone telling you that G'd is fake and never existed is also a liar, or is misrepresenting themselves, or speculating. Did they get in a magic fucking spaceship and fly to Heaven-land on the Highway to Heaven with Michael fucking Landon and Victor French? Did they get on the starship Enterprise with Captain Kirk and Spock's brother Sybok like in Star Trek 5 and warp-speed over to the centre of the universe? No. Did they drive by His house and sho'nuff, no lights were on at the Pearly Gates? No. Call His house and someone named Lupe answers and said "no dios aqui!"? No. Is there NOT a G'd? Maybe. You may BELIEVE. You may have DOUBT.

Those two positions are not equivalent. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is a pretty damned strong indication and can be used as an assumption until further evidence presents itself. The ones making fantastic claims hold the burden of proof to prove that the fantastic exists.

If a child insisted he had an invisible friend who watched over and protected him and granted him wishes, one would be rightfully skeptical. If a priest makes the same claim, he should be met with the same skepticism.

Traak

2011-09-30, 08:35 PM

Well if it was evidence, it would be fact based not perception based.

Really. So no one has ever been jailed for something based on one person's testimony? Or two?

Testimony of eyewitnesses is acceptable. Until it proves God is at work, then it isn't?

Quovatis

2011-09-30, 08:51 PM

Really. So no one has ever been jailed for something based on one person's testimony? Or two?

Testimony of eyewitnesses is acceptable. Until it proves God is at work, then it isn't?

Well, for god, there is conflicting testimonies really. Do you accept all the eyewitnesses that have see Thor, Zeus, Allah, Mohammad, and the god of the forest too? Pick any religion and you have believers proclaiming eyewitness accounts of their particular god/prophet, but oddly they never see the god/prophet of another religion. That isn't strange to you? All of them can't be right, but they all can be wrong.

Traak

2011-09-30, 08:51 PM

Those two positions are not equivalent. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is a pretty damned strong indication and can be used as an assumption until further evidence presents itself. The ones making fantastic claims hold the burden of proof to prove that the fantastic exists.

If a child insisted he had an invisible friend who watched over and protected him and granted him wishes, one would be rightfully skeptical. If a priest makes the same claim, he should be met with the same skepticism.

However, I have found that the average person who refuses to believe in God just refuses to believe something anyone tells him they experienced that proves God IS real. Then it's his turn to:

God isn't real!
But, he just healed me of a condition that was incurable.
LALALALA I'm not listeninnggggg!

Or the old standby: You were wrongly diagnosed.

Jesus himself said when telling of the rich man and Lazarus that people have the Word of God. If they don't believe that, they won't though one were raised from the dead.

I have seen a sinner who was healed so she no longer needed glasses. She still refused to make a commitment to Christ. How did I know she no longer needed her glasses? She told me so after she was ministered to for healing. She could read a newspaper right up by her face and see distant mountains clearly. Her eyes were healed, instantly, by God.

So I asked her about making a commitment to Christ, since he had obviously proven he was real and that he loved her.

Nope. Not interested. Everyone still has choices to make. She made hers. Even when God provides obvious evidence of his love and his very existence, the choice is still up to the individual. And usually, it is just easier to believe in aliens, or the big bang, or whatever than to say "Yes, God is real, but I'm too stupid and stubborn to bother making a commitment to that fact."

And people have a free will, and they can do that. It's their choice. Often it becomes all elaborate, with charts and graphs, and whatever, but the root thing is still a choice.

Crator

2011-09-30, 09:50 PM

Cute story. Medical history of patient please.

Quovatis

2011-09-30, 11:44 PM

Sight improving and cancer going away happens all the time naturally. It's not a miracle. It doesn't prove anything. When "god" can heal something that would truly be a miracle (like growing a new limb after it was amputated), then I'd be impressed. There have been many scientific studies showing praying for the sick doesn't improve the chances of healing compared to those who don't pray.

CutterJohn

2011-09-30, 11:45 PM

But, he just healed me of a condition that was incurable.

Who told you the condition was incurable? Our grasp of biology and medical science is incomplete at best. Freak recoveries happen, as do freak deaths.

And the eyes.. As Crator said, cute story. Do you perhaps have a link to a study reproducing the results of said faith healing? How about the girls prescription before and after?

Also.. You want me to believe god is willing to waste a miracle on some random broads eyes when lasik centers are all over the place, but couldn't get a few pounds of rice and beans to this kid? (http://dreamysap.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/220743_1923393373778_1510418566_3469407_1706496_o. jpg?w=614&h=410)

Whatever. Disregarding the question of whether or not there is a god, there are mountains of evidence pointing to the conclusion that, if god exists, it's either really, really shitty at its job or just doesn't give a shit about us.

Quovatis

2011-09-30, 11:54 PM

Heh, yeah, that's my position. Even if it ends up that god is real, he's a big jerk in my eyes, not to mention amoral and unethical if the bible is true. I want nothing of it. And the people who pray to him and ask for things are really selfish if you think about it. They are asking god to solve their problems when there are millions of people on earth suffering from starvation, disease, and war, far worse off than they will ever be.

Firefly

2011-10-01, 12:04 AM

Testimony of eyewitnesses is acceptable. Until it proves God is at work, then it isn't?
In a court of law, yes eyewitness testimony is legally acceptable. However, public and legal opinion is that eyewitness testimony is incredibly flawed. Which is why a majority of eyewitness testimonies can be discounted or discredited by a decent lawyer. A great lawyer can get them completely turned around.

Well, for god, there is conflicting testimonies really. Do you accept all the eyewitnesses that have see Thor, Zeus, Allah, Mohammad, and the god of the forest too? Pick any religion and you have believers proclaiming eyewitness accounts of their particular god/prophet, but oddly they never see the god/prophet of another religion. That isn't strange to you? All of them can't be right, but they all can be wrong.
G'd, God, Allah, Yahweh... they're all the same people. It's a different name for the same deity. Christians, **** and Muslims share the exact same G'd. Mohammed was a prophet, a mortal man, a historical figure whose existence was documented. Islam recognises the fact that Jesus existed and mentions him as the Messiah and as the Messenger of G'd. As a matter of fact, Islam actually requires you to believe in Jesus. In terms of Judaism, Jesus is viewed as as a teacher and many rabbis will go so far as to acknowledge that regardless of what Jesus really was, his existence and his story provides a strong sense of morality to the world.

Traak

2011-10-01, 04:23 AM

Who told you the condition was incurable? Our grasp of biology and medical science is incomplete at best. Freak recoveries happen, as do freak deaths.

And the eyes.. As Crator said, cute story. Do you perhaps have a link to a study reproducing the results of said faith healing? How about the girls prescription before and after?

Also.. You want me to believe god is willing to waste a miracle on some random broads eyes when lasik centers are all over the place, but couldn't get a few pounds of rice and beans to this kid? (http://dreamysap.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/220743_1923393373778_1510418566_3469407_1706496_o. jpg?w=614&h=410)

Whatever. Disregarding the question of whether or not there is a god, there are mountains of evidence pointing to the conclusion that, if god exists, it's either really, really shitty at its job or just doesn't give a shit about us.

Right, your mind was made up far in advance. As is most people's. Which is what i have been saying. No evidence matters as much as it could when people's minds are already made up.

And, you say the evidence is that God is doing a bad job. Is it God forcing people to have sex outside marriage, have kids with absentee fathers, and thus provide the vast majority of criminals on the Earth, including terrorists?

You blame God for people's faults?

MadPenguin

2011-10-01, 06:13 AM

Baneblade

2011-10-01, 06:30 AM

Really. So no one has ever been jailed for something based on one person's testimony? Or two?

Testimony of eyewitnesses is acceptable. Until it proves God is at work, then it isn't?

Eyewitness testimony alone hasn't been enough to convict in a long time without lots and lots of corroboration. In fact, there is a strong push to be rid of it entirely within the due process system.

Traak

2011-10-01, 11:02 AM

Traak, you keep throwing around the word "evidence" but as others keep saying and you keep ignoring, you haven't given us any tangible or reliable evidence.

You also carry on calling people closed minded, but it appears you are fairly closed minded yourself, take the plank out of your own eye first or however that thing goes.

Consider people who lived 3000 years ago who understood little of the immune system. Whenever a person would seemingly be going to die soon, and then got better because of his immune system, people would have attributed this to God because they didnt know better. Its very similar to the whole God of the gaps thing. You cant insert God just because we dont yet have an explanation, people have been doing this for tens of thousands of years and guess what, they have ALWAYS been wrong.

Just quickly, if we cant explain how someone got better and you praise God for this, you have to stay consistent and say if we cant explain how someone died, it must also be God killing them.

On the topic of good and evil this debate seems to have evolved towards, it is true that God (if he exists) cannot be held accountable for the actions of people. But lets consider the case of tsunamis. Are they necessary? We could still have earthquakes hurricanes etc so people would still have natural disasters to be able to doubt Gods existence, hell, it could be argued no natural disasters are needed at all, that human evil would give people enough cause to disbelieve in God and for others to "prove" their love of God and get into heaven. But lets just take the case of tsunamis, they arent necessary, why would a perfect, all loving God put more misery in our world than is necessary. But i've become side-tracked.

So much more to say (especially on the whole evolution skepticism) but this post is already far too long. I may address that issue further down.

What I think is funny is that, somehow, God gets the blame for Tsunamis killing people. If they listened to God, they would have heard him instruct them to move out of its way. He's always talking, but not many are listening. As I said, why does God get blamed for people not taking advantage of things he has provided in his Word?

Whole nations reject God, or try to fashion him in their own image, then turn around in shrieking spite any time anything happens, and blame him for it. God didn't put ANY misery in the world. Adam invited that in when he rebelled against God and obeyed Satan.

Man is 100 percent responsible for the suffering on Earth. Before man made the choice that led to Satan becoming the god of this world, the world and everything in it was perfect and harmonious.

The example I gave earlier: God says "No sex outside marriage." Man says "Ha! I know better! I will sling my seed everywhere I possibly can! There is much pleasure to be had sowing my wild oats." And the world is overrun with fatherless children. Where do you think the Taliban recruits its victims from? Universities with young people whose loving parents are putting them through medical school? Families with caring fathers who are there for their children? No, they prey on the fatherless. Just like criminals everywhere. Oh, but it's God's fault when people disobey that one principle, for an example, and raise kids in broken or nonexistent families?

Disease, war, famine, are all products of the sin of man. God gave man choice. Man chose evil, and does so to this day. It just gets repackaged over and over. With Adam, the package was "Oh, you will be like God, knowing good and evil!" For people like you, the package is different, but same product: sin, rejection of God, rebellion against the God who is far more able to tell you how to live than you are, and choices based on ignorance instead of on infinite knowledge.

Where you get the insane idea that God is responsible for the sins and failures of yourself and others, I do not know. It isn't based in fact. A coconut falls off a tree and hits you, and it's God's fault? AIDS being an epidemic spread by homosexuals that's God's fault too, the one who forbids homosexual thought and action? Yes, I know, they managed to infect straight people also. But you, like many, blame God for your faults and the faults of mankind in general.

But, oh, when it comes to Him healing or blessing someone who actually conducts themself in accordance with his Word, that's just a cosmic fluke. Would have happened anyway. It was aliens. They weren't really sick. etc.

God's way works. Failing to follow it doesn't. He gave us all choice. You can choose whatever you want. You can believe anything. But blaming God when you or others who believe as you do die, screw up, or fail? He made you do what you do? He doesn't mess with free will. Even Christians who are ignorant, whether willfully or due to deception, lack of knowledge, or whatever, can fail to receive all that God has for them. Because he does not violate their will. If he could MAKE everybody do what he wanted them to do, he would MAKE people quit being stupid and blaming him for everything bad, while finding what they regard as utterly cunning scientific reasons to NOT credit him when anything good happens.

Satan is the god of this world, in case you couldn't figure that out by looking, not God. God got invited OUT by Adam, and has been largely on the outside since. I marvel that people figure God is in control of this world when it is such a disaster zone. He isn't in control, or he would make people, who also don't believe in following God's ways, quit molesting children.

God isn't in control of this world, man is, as lorded over by Satan. God is not responsible for your choices, or anyone else's. You are. And it is people choosing to do things outside of the best way to do them that has given you the world you see now.

CutterJohn

2011-10-01, 11:13 AM

Right, your mind was made up far in advance. As is most people's. Which is what i have been saying. No evidence matters as much as it could when people's minds are already made up.

Certainly not. You show me a reproduceable miracle that defies all known physical laws/modern medical science/etc and I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I want to see scientists visibly shaken at the impossibility of the results. I would also accept him appearing in the sky to all the peoples of the world at once and saying hi.

And, you say the evidence is that God is doing a bad job. Is it God forcing people to have sex outside marriage, have kids with absentee fathers, and thus provide the vast majority of criminals on the Earth, including terrorists?

No I said the evidence shows that if god exists, it is doing a shitty job. This is not evidence for or against its existence. It is evidence, for me, that its existence is irrelevant as it is not something I would wish to 'worship'. If it doesn't exist, great. If it exists, I am disappointed in it. Greatly disappointed.

You blame God for people's faults?

Your charming little anecdote? The one about the eyes? You say god can and does perform miracles to fix people. It meddles, and this meddling is evidence of its existence. Ok, let us, for the moment, assume that this is true.

Your contention is it is willing to perform these obscure little miraculous healings, but it is not willing to make some guy not rape or murder? It just does what any lasik center can do in a few minutes?

You can't have it both ways. If it meddles and performs miracles, then there is no excuse for not meddling further and stopping rape and murder and war and famine. If it doesn't meddle and leaves everything up to free will and chance, then your claim of evidence is invalid, since there is none. Why does it get a pass on letting a kiddy rapist live but gets the credit for fixing some broads eyes?

He's always talking, but not many are listening.

Perhaps it should consult with the Japanese. They seem to have a far superior system for tsunami warning. 20s after the quake cell phones across the country were ringing with an automated warning with location and probable danger areas, and every tv and radio station was automatically preempted with the same info.

Firefly

2011-10-01, 11:21 AM

What I think is funny is that, somehow, God gets the blame for Tsunamis killing people.
That's funny. I heard a redneck Teabagger in South Carolina blame Barack Obama for the tsunami. I've also heard the DARPA weather machine blamed for it, I've heard Arab terrorists detonated a bomb under the ocean, I've heard the End Times blamed for the tsunami... take your pick.

Traak

2011-10-01, 12:02 PM

God works by written, defined laws. Known as the Holy Bible. He doesn't just randomly heal "some broad's eyes." I found out how to apply his healing power to someone who would receive it, and having learned, I applied it, and she was healed.

Even Jesus Christ, when he was here, in person, didn't heal everyone everywhere. He walked by people who were sick for decades, and they didn't get healed. God working on the behalf of man is dependent on man learning and applying how to get that to happen from God's Word.

To blame Boeing because you can't fly 787's, when they have courses, flight schools, etc. that you can take is just as ignorant as blaming God for people being harmed. He doesn't just randomly do things. He does things according to strict guidelines, and by learning how to conform to what is necessary to receive what God offers to everyone is incumbent on us.

He gave us his Word. If you discard that, or misunderstand it, or fail to practice it, then you don't get the results. How DOES God prevent children from being molested? Well, again, people having children in the first place who are married to the right person is a great start. How do you marry the right person? The one God knows is perfect for you? You have to be led by the Spirit of God. How do you be led by the Spirit of God? Know God's Word and practice it.

Having done that, you then have to listen to his leadings on an individual and daily basis. He will warn you not to let your child go here or there, and to engage in habits that make child security easier to attain. But, you would have to be obedient enough to even be in a position to hear when he speaks.

Further, the child molester him/herself: If he or she would obey the Bible, they wouldn't be molesting children, and wouldn't even be thinking and dwelling on such thoughts. As I said, it is obedience to God's Word and his spirit that leads to victory in life.

Take tobacco, for example. I think it is bad to traffic in tobacco. I don't work for places that sell it, I don't buy or sell it myself, and I try to get others to quit using it, or not start in the first place. By not using it myself, I am not going to influence others, even unwittingly, to think it is acceptable. However, if someone is making 100,000 dollars a year marketing tobacco products, he is part of the problem. If he would obey the Bible, he wouldn't be trafficking in tobacco. Or harmful drugs either. Is God to blame when people die from emphysema? "Why didn't God heal that man of lung cancer?" He told him not to smoke his entire life. If you stand at the side of the road and tell people continually not to drive over that bridge that's out, and they laugh at you as being some kind of weirdo and drive over the bridge that's out and die, now you are at fault because you didn't succeed in convincing them to not be stupid?

If you do things God's way, it works. It includes general knowledge of what he said in his Word, and specific knowledge about what he is saying, right now, specifically, to you, by his Spirit. There is such a tangled web of disaster that follows sins that it would take more books than people could read in a lifetime to explain all the negative effects of any particular sin they like to practice. Simpler to just say "Do not steal." If you do not steal, you do not start a domino-effect chain reaction of negative consequences. If you don't commit adultery, you avoid a different set of negative consequences. If you don't traffic in tobacco or other harmful drugs, you avoid more.

But, it's people sinning against God, themselves, and others that brings negative results. And God is not required to follow you around and slap your hand every time you reach for a child porn magazine or download, a cigarette, or a murder weapon, if you have rejected his counsel as laid out in his Word. He gives his Word, you reject that, then walk up and down, crowing about how God is so nonexistent, irrelevant, and stupid, pointing at the bad results of a world full of people who disobey God just like you do, and claim that your bad results prove that God sucks.

People not doing things God's way and thus suffering bad consequences doesn't prove God doesn't exist anymore than jumping off a building and dying as a result of the fall proves that God doesn't exist. God operates by laws, they are laid out in his Word, and rejecting his Word is the first step towards having a disastrous life.

And, for the children that are victims of the lack of diligence on the part of their parents: yes, they are innocent. Adults have the responsibility to care for children. If they shirk that responsibility, such as by having children they are in no position whatsoever to be able to properly care for (average ghetto anywhere) then they have abused their authority, and, as usual, the innocent suffer for fools who reject God's ways.

However, in eternity, we are rewarded with whatever we did in this life. Children who die all go to heaven, and heaven is forever. The stupid adults that abused them, by omission or commission, will, if they did not repent of their sins, end up in hell now and later the lake of fire. Everlasting fire was not prepared for man, it was prepared for the devil and his angels. If man rejects God, he dooms himself to a place that has as little of God's influence as possible, along with Satan and his angels. God does not reject man. Man rejects God. And the world we see is a result of that rejection.

Crator

2011-10-01, 12:18 PM

What I think is funny is that, somehow, God gets the blame for Tsunamis killing people. If they listened to God, they would have heard him instruct them to move out of its way. He's always talking, but not many are listening. As I said, why does God get blamed for people not taking advantage of things he has provided in his Word?

Has nothing to do with God. Tsunamis are caused by a natural occurrence called tectonic plate shifts. These tectonic plate shift just so happen to occur in the ocean, causing a mass of water to rush towards the dry land. If ya ask me, stupid people should stop building so close to the ocean. Or figure out how to build structures that can withstand them.

Crator

2011-10-01, 12:28 PM

There's no doubt that legitimate religious organizations do teach good values and how to live a safe and prosperous life in today's world. That doesn't necessarily mean that those good values and teachings have to come from a religious organization. Or even have to be taught under the threat of damnation.

Quovatis

2011-10-01, 01:33 PM

God works by written, defined laws. Known as the Holy Bible.

Aw yes, the wonderful ethical and moral god who tells his people to stone to death non-believers, commit genocide of an entire race, and tells you that as long as your slave doesn't die from your beatings in 24 hours, it's pefectly ok to flog them as much as you want. That god? What a role model. :rolleyes:

Science and secularism has lead most people away from such things that are written in god's "rulebook". Believers conveniently ignore the parts that don't sound good any longer and only look at the lovey lovey bits.

Baneblade

2011-10-01, 05:00 PM

What I think is funny is that, somehow, God gets the blame for Tsunamis killing people.

Last I checked only believers did things like that.

If they listened to God, they would have heard him instruct them to move out of its way. He's always talking, but not many are listening. As I said, why does God get blamed for people not taking advantage of things he has provided in his Word?

Where in his word was there ever a warning about tsunamis hitting Japan?

Whole nations reject God, or try to fashion him in their own image, then turn around in shrieking spite any time anything happens, and blame him for it.

Any examples in particular? From what I can tell, the only countries claiming anything about god are 'radical'.

God didn't put ANY misery in the world. Adam invited that in when he rebelled against God and obeyed Satan.

You mean Eve, right?

Man is 100 percent responsible for the suffering on Earth. Before man made the choice that led to Satan becoming the god of this world, the world and everything in it was perfect and harmonious.

Im almost 100% certain the cavemen would disagree.

The example I gave earlier: God says "No sex outside marriage." Man says "Ha! I know better! I will sling my seed everywhere I possibly can! There is much pleasure to be had sowing my wild oats." And the world is overrun with fatherless children.

You may have a point, but marriage is also a recent invention in evolutionary terms.

Where do you think the Taliban recruits its victims from? Universities with young people whose loving parents are putting them through medical school? Families with caring fathers who are there for their children? No, they prey on the fatherless. Just like criminals everywhere. Oh, but it's God's fault when people disobey that one principle, for an example, and raise kids in broken or nonexistent families?

I don't think you know what you are talking about here.

Disease, war, famine, are all products of the sin of man.

War is anyway. Sometimes famine is, but not always. As for disease, sort of.

God gave man choice. Man chose evil, and does so to this day.

Man chose knowledge. And even so, how can exercising 'god given' free will be considered evil?

AIDS being an epidemic spread by homosexuals that's God's fault too, the one who forbids homosexual thought and action?

I suppose you also think homosexuals created HIV as well... ?

But, oh, when it comes to Him healing or blessing someone who actually conducts themself in accordance with his Word, that's just a cosmic fluke. Would have happened anyway. It was aliens. They weren't really sick. etc.

So when an athiest gets a 'miracle' cure, you are saying it is god?

But blaming God when you or others who believe as you do die, screw up, or fail?

I suppose you think true believers don't die from dirty things like AIDS, cancer, and car accidents.

Krowe

2011-10-01, 05:16 PM

I suppose you think true believers don't die from dirty things like AIDS, cancer, and car accidents.

Silly Sobe, he means they don't die at all.

There really is no point arguing with a religious nutjob.

Baneblade

2011-10-01, 05:33 PM

Forgot about that whole Crusader mentality...

MadPenguin

2011-10-01, 08:15 PM

I appreciate that Sobekeus has done much of the work for me, but Traak has put so much on the table i just have to get my two cents in.

Where you get the insane idea that God is responsible for the sins and failures of yourself and others, I do not know. It isn't based in fact. A coconut falls off a tree and hits you, and it's God's fault?

I never said i believe this, i simply stated the natural corollary of what you were saying, its very funny you seem to find this so objectional, let me explain what happened:

You said X is true.
I said, but if X is true, Y is true.
You said, but Y is ridiculous, Y cant be true.
So i say to you now, surely X isnt true.
(X = claim that God is responsible for all good things that cant yet be explained)
(Y = claim that God is responsible for all evil thing that cant yet be explained)
If the reasoning that shows X is true is solid, it must also show Y is true.

AIDS being an epidemic spread by homosexuals that's God's fault too, the one who forbids homosexual thought and action? Yes, I know, they managed to infect straight people also. But you, like many, blame God for your faults and the faults of mankind in general.

I am going to try and tread carefully here because this is the kind of thing that can get a thread shut down, but even as a non homosexual i find what you say to be homophobic, all i would ask is you try to phrase what you are saying a little more gently in future.

But, oh, when it comes to Him healing or blessing someone who actually conducts themself in accordance with his Word, that's just a cosmic fluke.

Again, all we ask for is some tangible, reliable evidence.

God's way works. Failing to follow it doesn't. He gave us all choice. You can choose whatever you want. You can believe anything. But blaming God when you or others who believe as you do die, screw up, or fail? He made you do what you do? He doesn't mess with free will.

All you are arguing against here is the implications of what you say (which i wrote in my previous post), i dont believe these things, but if what you say is true these things must be true.

What I think is funny is that, somehow, God gets the blame for Tsunamis killing people. If they listened to God, they would have heard him instruct them to move out of its way. He's always talking, but not many are listening.

What i find funny is that you either havent read my post or you are intentionally taking what i say out of context. I didn't say God is resposible, i dont believe in God, i just assumed from what you have said that you were a sort of take the bible literally sort of guy. I was making the point that if God is omnipotent, he doesnt need to put excess misery into our universe. If God were benevolent, he wouldnt want any excess misery in our universe. Since we have excess misery in our universe these two claims cant both be true. (I made it clear that this wasnt massively important to what we were talking about but it was a side point, i find it amusing Traak spent most of his post (poorly) addressing this side point instead of my points that were aimed towards him)

Man is 100 percent responsible for the suffering on Earth. Before man made the choice that led to Satan becoming the god of this world, the world and everything in it was perfect and harmonious.

Trying to tie this in to the original post, i realise this is a radical claim that most religious people would refute (since this says the only reason we have tsunamis and earthquakes etc is because of our sins), but while there are people that claim such things, sceince CANNOT stay silent.

The example I gave earlier: God says "No sex outside marriage." Man says "Ha! I know better! I will sling my seed everywhere I possibly can! There is much pleasure to be had sowing my wild oats." And the world is overrun with fatherless children. Where do you think the Taliban recruits its victims from? Universities with young people whose loving parents are putting them through medical school? Families with caring fathers who are there for their children?

You clearly havent been told that of the 19 suicide bombers that were responsible for 9/11, all of them had university degrees, many of them had masters and PHD's. What you are saying here is void.

Disease, war, famine, are all products of the sin of man.

If disease is only as a result of mans incompetence, why must all other animals suffer from it also? Seems a bit unfair, evidence please?

God got invited OUT by Adam, and has been largely on the outside since. I marvel that people figure God is in control of this world when it is such a disaster zone. He isn't in control, or he would make people, who also don't believe in following God's ways, quit molesting children.

. If he could MAKE everybody do what he wanted them to do, he would MAKE people quit being stupid and blaming him for everything bad, while finding what they regard as utterly cunning scientific reasons to NOT credit him when anything good happens.

You are saying here God cannot do something, therefore, God isnt omnipotent, therefore, since definitions of God are something along the lines of "all-powerful being" the thing you believe in isnt a God.

." I found out how to apply his healing power to someone who would receive it, and having learned, I applied it, and she was healed.

Hallelujah, we have a healer amongst our midst, how trivially easy it would be for you to show us your powers, please, record it on tape, all scientists are holding their breath along with me, im sure.

People not doing things God's way and thus suffering bad consequences doesn't prove God doesn't exist anymore than jumping off a building and dying as a result of the fall proves that God doesn't exist.

Im trying not to sounds like a broken record but again all we want is evidence. We cant be ABSOLUTELY sure the Sun is at the centre of the galaxy, its within the realm of possibility that it isnt, but everyone believes it is because of the evidence.

I know this is outrageously long and thanks if you read it all, but Traak is putting so much on the table, we just have to point out where he goes wrong in his logic.

I also apoligize if this seems incoherent in any way or there are miss spellings, this is the 3rd time ive written this out since the last 2 times it claimed i wasnt logged in and said it couldnt post what i had written, the first 2 posts i wrote were better i assure you (its now 2:22 a.m. in England and i cba anymore). i hope you appreciate the effort i go to for you Traak :)

CutterJohn

2011-10-01, 09:29 PM

If he would obey the Bible, he wouldn't be trafficking in tobacco. Or harmful drugs either.

No, he would just be trafficking in slaves. Your bible is quite clear on the subject.

Traak

2011-10-01, 11:48 PM

I am going to try and tread carefully here because this is the kind of thing that can get a thread shut down, but even as a non-homosexual i find what you say to be homophobic, all i would ask is you try to phrase what you are saying a little more gently in future.

Not homophobic.

From the site http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

From the site http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

The HIV transmission route leading to the most AIDS diagnosis in 2009 was male-to-male sexual contact, followed by heterosexual contact and injection drug use.

Note that this is the transmission route leading to the most AIDS diagnosis. Not the route that leads to the highest RATE. So, despite being about 2% of the population or so, they have the majority of the AIDS infection cases. It isn't homophobic to note this.

Is this enough tangible, reliable evidence that homosexuality doesn't work as well as heterosexuality?

Again, all we ask for is some tangible, reliable evidence.

Well, I laid hands on the chick, commanded the devil to get his hands off her eyes, in the name of Jesus, commanded her eyes to be healed, also in the name of Jesus, and she was healed, didn't need her glasses any longer. It was tangible, especially to her. Now, I can't provide you with a medical report. I haven't seen her in over 25 years. Please don't bother stating why this can't possibly be true, I've heard it before.

I did the same for a guys knee at church one day. It was healed right there, and years later, I saw him in some shopping mall, he was all smiles, said his knee had never again bothered him after that day. This is something all believers in Christ can do, if they learn how. It isn't some special spooky anointing available for $9.95 and a packet of my special anointing oil, people are standing by to take your order. Again, I am not asking you to believe this. I have heard the litany of reasons why it couldn't possibly be God. Don't bother. You only have yourself to convince.

Another time, I had a friend whose girlfriend was suffering neck pains. He brought her to me because he had heard I did this sort of thing. She didn't believe it would work. I laid hands on her, commanded the devil to get his hands off her neck in the name of Jesus, commanded her neck to be healed in the name of Jesus, in a casual voice, and said "Now, move your neck around." She was turned her head toward her boyfriend to tell him how stupid this was. However, when she turned her head to pronounce her opinion on how stupid what I did was, she realized she was healed.

Now, realistically, even if I had x-rays, MRI's and a panel of expert witnesses, is it really going to make you say "Wow, that God stuff must be real."?

People suffering in the world in spite of an omnipotent God is the result of the fact that said omnipotent God delegated authority on Earth to mankind. To say he allows suffering, or excess suffering, as you said, is accurate, in the sense that once he has delegated authority, he can't just take the reins back unless a man has invited him to do so, because that is violating man's will. God did not heal that girl's neck until someone did something about it as instructed in God's word.

Healing and such are not a big, spooky deal, not some exclusive-club membership thing available only to the very holy, the very rich, or the very spiritually weird. It works, just like a 787 taking off works, by set, defined laws. You find out the laws, you apply them, it works.

If God were benevolent, he wouldnt want any excess misery in our universe. Since we have excess misery in our universe these two claims cant both be true.

You clearly havent been told that of the 19 suicide bombers that were responsible for 9/11, all of them had university degrees, many of them had masters and PHD's. What you are saying here is void.

No, just because 19 people, which you have no tangible reliable evidence even existed, supposedly flew a plane into a tower, were educated, according, again, to evidence that you do not have that is tangible or reliable, does not negate the FACT that most crime is rooted in fatherless children.

From http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/
Statistics
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

Traak

2011-10-02, 12:13 AM

If disease is only as a result of mans incompetence, why must all other animals suffer from it also? Seems a bit unfair, evidence please?

The evidence is written in the Bible. Everything evil being present in the world, from a hangnail to nuclear disasters is a result of the original man disobeying God, and rejecting his lordship. Why do peoople's lawns suffer if they don't take care of them? Because they have authority over their lawn. Why is the world suffering because man has sinned and continues to do so? Because mankind has authority in this world. What the original lord of this world, Adam, did was to hand over lordship to Satan. And Satan became the lord, or god, of this world. Unfair? Yes. But, God made a way to rise above much of the evil in this world, by believing that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, and asking him to be your Lord. It isn't complicated. It's simple. The main issue people have is not wanting anyone else to be their boss. Of course, they go to work, and make a boss rich. They pay taxes, and make governments rich, all of whom are imperfect. Then they rebel against a perfect God, throwing off his rule? Free will.

You are saying here God cannot do something, therefore, God isnt omnipotent, therefore, since definitions of God are something along the lines of "all-powerful being" the thing you believe in isnt a God.

God abiding by a rule that he himself made does not reduce his omnipotence. He gave authority to man. Authority carries with it responsibility. I have no authority over your children, if you have them, and therefore I also carry no responsibility. If you refuse God's rulership, you refuse his provision and protection. He is not going to kick your door down, and force you to be healed. Healing is available, and it is free. Refuse the provider, even by ignorance, then you refuse the provision.

Hallelujah, we have a healer amongst our midst, how trivially easy it would be for you to show us your powers, please, record it on tape, all scientists are holding their breath along with me, im sure.

I agree with the hallelujah part. Jesus himself, when faced with people demanding he demonstrate his power, refused to do it. Is the disciple above his master? No. If people genuinely need healing, and actually want it, not just hoping they can prove that junk doesn't work, or prove it does, that is one thing. Demanding that someone perform for your satisfaction is another.

I'm trying not to sounds like a broken record but again all we want is evidence. We cant be ABSOLUTELY sure the Sun is at the centre of the solar system, its within the realm of possibility that it isnt, but everyone believes it is because of the evidence.

If you truly, actually want to know for sure if there is a God or not, just ask him to help you find out. If he's real, he will. If he's not, then no one heard your prayer anyway! He works on the Earth through men, imperfect men. He doesn't NEED us to be perfect to use us. He doesn't NEED us to be some world-rocking superstar to assist people through us. He does what he does through people who are willing and obedient to the Bible, especially the New Testament. The church, though populated by imperfect people, is still where God does a lot of what he does in the Earth.

Jesus works, as he did when he was here in person, through the common people, such as Simon Peter. Churches have people in varying degrees of imperfection. What was God supposed to do? Only select billionaire supermodels with an IQ of 200 or above, and shun everyone else?

Traak

2011-10-02, 12:23 AM

No, he would just be trafficking in slaves. Your bible is quite clear on the subject.

Old Testament. In the age before Jesus Christ died on the cross, rose from the dead, and made the Holy Spirit available to dwell directly in the spirits of any who accept Jesus as Lord, God gave them rules to abide by.

Since Jesus has come, we have the New Testament, and it has far different rules, because unlike Old Testament times, people in this age can become new on the inside, as Jesus described it: "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

In the Old Testament, everyone who was an adult was spiritually dead, separated from God in their spirit. No one could be born again, on the inside, become a new man in their heart=spirit. (not the blood pump, the spirit man inside).

We are not living in the time of the Old Covenant, so there are things in it that have been superseded by the New Covenant. We are no longer restricted to not eating certain things, we can't have more than one wife, we are commanded to not only not murder, but not to hate.

The world is different with the presence of people who are now bona fide children of God than it was before being born again was not available. And with that difference, new rules apply.

CutterJohn

2011-10-02, 12:36 AM

I note you completely fail to provide statistics regarding lesbians, since that would render your hypothesis invalid, considering they have lower rates of hiv and std infection than heterosexuals.

And I note you've healed eyesight, a sore knee, and a sore neck. Don't hold back, lets see something big. Find a veteran and regrow his leg. You do that and put it on video, and I'll believe. That would be some serious fucking evidence, which, considering you like to cite studies, you should be a fan of now.

Or are you just going to stick to healing ambiguous stuff so you can keep believing you did something and not have to face the fact that you may be wrong?

Crator

2011-10-02, 12:55 AM

American Cancer Society: Faith Healing (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/MindBodyandSpirit/faith-healing)

Although it is known that a small percentage of people with cancer experience remissions of their disease that cannot be explained, available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can actually cure physical ailments. When a person believes strongly that a healer can create a cure, a “placebo effect” can occur. The placebo effect can make the person feel better, but it has not been found to induce remission or improve chance of survival from cancer. The patient usually credits the improvement in how he or she feels to the healer, even though the perceived improvement occurs because of the patient’s belief in the treatment. Taking part in faith healing can evoke the power of suggestion and affirm one’s faith in a higher power, which may help promote peace of mind. This may help some people cope more effectively with their illness.

One review published in 1998 looked at 172 cases of deaths among children treated by faith healing instead of conventional methods. These researchers estimated that if conventional treatment had been given, the survival rate for most of these children would have been more than 90 percent, with the remainder of the children also having a good chance of survival. A more recent study found that more than 200 children had died of treatable illnesses in the United States over the past thirty years because their parents relied on spiritual healing rather than conventional medical treatment.

In addition, at least one study has suggested that adult Christian Scientists, who generally use prayer rather than medical care, have a higher death rate than other people of the same age.

Firefly

2011-10-02, 01:02 AM

This faith-healing stuff reminds me of the movie "Fletch Lives".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-ZEvjJBLvM&feature=player_detailpage#t=49s

Traak

2011-10-02, 01:23 AM

And I note you've healed

No, God heals, we only do what is necessary to allow him to work for any given person in any given situation. Just like aerodynamics, mechanical engineering, or gravity, God works by laws. If you find them out and use them, they work.

Don't hold back, lets see something big.

But, as I said earlier, the power of God is given to do good, not to perform parlor tricks for people who won't believe, no matter what. Jesus wouldn't jump through hoops to appease people, and we, the believers, aren't allowed to, either. He was almighty, and could have done any number of miracles right there to shut them up, and he didn't. I'm not almighty, how much less likely is it for God to do something to entertain and dazzle you through me?

To say that no one ever got healed by God's power because I haven't ministered to someone in the regrowing of a limb is as invalid as saying the laws of aerodynamics didn't work for the Wright Brothers because they didn't create an A380. "Flying doesn't work! No way! If flying REALLY worked, you would have built a four-engine, two-floor passenger jet!"

Working for a living is not a failed concept because I have never become a billionaire. Bodybuilding isn't invalid because I have never lifted 1000 pounds in the deadlift. It doesn't mean I have never deadlifted.

I am not stating these things to make you believe. I am stating them because they are true. What you believe is up to you, and is largely based on your choices. Some people are smart enough to believe what God said without having to see someone raised from the dead after being run through a tree chipper. Others, such as yourself, think that not seeing something like that is your excuse not to believe, your proof that God isn't at work.

Hey, take whatever excuse you want! Let the fact that you stubbed your toe be proof that God doesn't exist if that's what you want. Let the fact that Jesus has never descended into your living room in a flaming chariot, stepped down, and handed you an autographed copy of the Bible made of solid platinum be your excuse. If you need an excuse, you can surely invent one that is more creative than just not having seen a creative miracle!

Your choice is why you believe what you believe, not the other way around. God said he was real and sent Jesus to save me, and I believed that. If you state that you need more proof, well, I can't help you. Ask God to make himself real to you, if he exists. He will, but whether you choose to serve him will still be up to you.

It's funny, people risk their lives on far less evidence. Does every person who engages in immoral sex run their latest conquest through a blood test to ascertain whether he, she, or it has an STD before engaging in high-risk behaviors? Do they say "Show me tangible, visible, concrete evidence that you don't have AIDS before we copulate."? She didn't tell you she had AIDS. And that is proof enough! But if she told you "My neck got healed at church the other day!" NOW we need a mountain of evidence?

People demand ridiculous manifestations of God's power for their amusement to prove that he's real? How about if people switch it around. Then at least the AIDS epidemic would be drastically reduced.

I believed God. Then he has manifested things that can only be explained (by a sane person) as having been done by him. It's the way he works. We believe, we act on that belief, we get results. God doesn't prance around sprinkling results around like some cosmic Tinkerbell, and we get to browse through the results until we find one that convinces us that he is real.

We have the Bible. Rejecting that, we have our creative and convincing excuses about why it doesn't work.

Or, accepting it, which I did, we can get positive results.

It can't be a placebo effect for a girl who thought it was stupid to get healed. She wasn't falling at my feet fawning upon me, expecting great things. She let me minister to her because her boyfriend asked me to, and was not impressed. UNTIL she noticed her neck was healed.

I ministered to one friend of mine who didn't even know what I was doing, and the only time she realized something had happened was when she realized she was healed. How can it be a placebo effect when the person isn't even aware?

Nah. God works today, through the common man, that people who aren't too determined to reject him no matter what will know that God is at work.

Baneblade

2011-10-02, 04:31 AM

Traak

2011-10-02, 06:47 AM

Yet, the fact remains... everything you have claimed to have done cannot be medically verified. And of course eyewitness 'testimony' is invalid.

Do something no mere witch doctor can do and you have credibility. I've personally seen pagan shamans do far more amazing things than what you describe.

It wasn't an entrance into an Amazing Supernatural Things Some Doubter Has Witnessed contest. I know people do supernatural things that are not from God. The magicians of pharaoh did similar miracles to Moses for the first few miracles. It's old news to say that the ungodly can also do supernatural things. Thousands of years old.

God doing something for someone that isn't at a ridiculous level of spectacular enough to make you say "Wow, now if that happens twice on a Tuesday, THEN I will believe" isn't what he's about. Sure, God loves everyone. But he can't make them believe anything.

I mean, there was pharaoh, on the edge of a sea that had been split open, the sea bed made capable of being walked over by millions, and this by the God that he had made himself an enemy of, and he drives right into it to pursue the people said God had just demanded he set free. You think he might have stopped and said "Wow, now if he just makes the entire sea dry up, or turn into wine, or turn into gold coins, THEN I will realize he is God."? Whatever went through his mind, he pursued, the sea came back down, and he and his entire army were destroyed.

The Egyptians suffered days, possibly weeks of miraculous events and Pharaoh yet hardened his heart. He was eyewitness to greater things than your pagan shamans could ever DREAM of doing. And he still hardened his heart. Did god manifesting vast power change his heart? No.

And it won't change yours, either.

MadPenguin

2011-10-02, 06:47 AM

Well, I laid hands on the chick, commanded the devil to get his hands off her eyes, in the name of Jesus, commanded her eyes to be healed, also in the name of Jesus, and she was healed, didn't need her glasses any longer. It was tangible, especially to her. Now, I can't provide you with a medical report. I haven't seen her in over 25 years. Please don't bother stating why this can't possibly be true, I've heard it before.

I did the same for a guys knee at church one day. It was healed right there, and years later, I saw him in some shopping mall, he was all smiles, said his knee had never again bothered him after that day. This is something all believers in Christ can do, if they learn how. It isn't some special spooky anointing available for $9.95 and a packet of my special anointing oil, people are standing by to take your order. Again, I am not asking you to believe this. I have heard the litany of reasons why it couldn't possibly be God. Don't bother. You only have yourself to convince.

Another time, I had a friend whose girlfriend was suffering neck pains. He brought her to me because he had heard I did this sort of thing. She didn't believe it would work. I laid hands on her, commanded the devil to get his hands off her neck in the name of Jesus, commanded her neck to be healed in the name of Jesus, in a casual voice, and said "Now, move your neck around." She was turned her head toward her boyfriend to tell him how stupid this was. However, when she turned her head to pronounce her opinion on how stupid what I did was, she realized she was healed.

Now, realistically, even if I had x-rays, MRI's and a panel of expert witnesses, is it really going to make you say "Wow, that God stuff must be real."?

Its all good and well you saying God has done these things and its up to us to believe them, but i have no reason to believe they actually happened. Lets say a muslim said that they had healed someone through Mohammed. I doubt you would believe this. I doubt you would expect me to just believe this without seeing any evidence. For the same reason you would reject this miracle of islam, i have to reject yours unless i see solid evidence.

People suffering in the world in spite of an omnipotent God is the result of the fact that said omnipotent God delegated authority on Earth to mankind.

So just to check you blame the presence of natural disasters on the sins of man?

Healing and such are not a big, spooky deal, not some exclusive-club membership thing available only to the very holy, the very rich, or the very spiritually weird. It works, just like a 787 taking off works, by set, defined laws. You find out the laws, you apply them, it works.

Great, set, defined laws, lets have them. And dont say its as simple as just believing. I was still a catholic when my Grandma died and dont think i didnt pray for her to get better.

No, just because 19 people, which you have no tangible reliable evidence even existed

No tangible or reliable evidence they existed... i get the feeling you have resorted to just saying things that contradict whay i say just for the sake of argument. We have very reliable evidence they existed, how about ground zero. They happily sent us videos to show they existed saying what they were doing. Again, look this up.

The evidence is written in the Bible.

Ok now im not asking for a lot from you here, just give us the relevant passages of the evidence. You are supposed to be helping people like us so you should be more than happy to provide us with the evidence in this case

Everything evil being present in the world, from a hangnail to nuclear disasters is a result of the original man disobeying God, and rejecting his lordship..

Again, this doesnt account for natural disasters.

God abiding by a rule that he himself made does not reduce his omnipotence.

By definition of omnipotence it does.

Hey, take whatever excuse you want! Let the fact that you stubbed your toe be proof that God doesn't exist

No one in this entire thread has mentioned not believing in God because something bad has happened to them, we all say its the same reason we dont believe in unicorns: there just isnt any evidence. Yet some line like this seems to find its way into every one of your posts.

It's funny, people risk their lives on far less evidence. Does every person who engages in immoral sex run their latest conquest through a blood test to ascertain whether he, she, or it has an STD before engaging in high-risk behaviors? Do they say "Show me tangible, visible, concrete evidence that you don't have AIDS before we copulate."? She didn't tell you she had AIDS. And that is proof enough!

It sounds like you have never heard of a condom.

People demand ridiculous manifestations of God's power for their amusement to prove that he's real?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it has always been this way.

I believed God. Then he has manifested things that can only be explained (by a sane person) as having been done by him.

I have said this all before but you didnt address it so here i go again. This is called the "God of the gaps". If we cant yet understand something, people say God. If you had been born in viking Norway, you would tell us about the magnificent flashes of light that come from the sky, and that we dont yet understand them. So your line would instead read: "The flashes of light can only be explained (by a sane person) as having been done by a God. Lets call this God Thor. You cannot just insert God into a problem we dont yet have an answer to.
Furthermore, if you want to say things that cant be explained must be God, you cant just say "all good things that cant be explained must be God". You have to say its true for ALL things that cant be explained, so you have to say if there is a death we cant explain, God killed them. (again, i dont believe this is true, but if YOU want to grant it for the good, you must also grant it for the evil.

MadPenguin

2011-10-02, 06:58 AM

I mean, there was pharaoh, on the edge of a sea that had been split open, the sea bed made capable of being walked over by millions, and this by the God that he had made himself an enemy of, and he drives right into it to pursue the people said God had just demanded he set free. You think he might have stopped and said "Wow, now if he just makes the entire sea dry up, or turn into wine, or turn into gold coins, THEN I will realize he is God."? Whatever went through his mind, he pursued, the sea came back down, and he and his entire army were destroyed.

The Egyptians suffered days, possibly weeks of miraculous events and Pharaoh yet hardened his heart. He was eyewitness to greater things than your pagan shamans could ever DREAM of doing. And he still hardened his heart. Did god manifesting vast power change his heart? No.

Evidence please, im not asking for a definitive proof, just some evidence.
If you want to make a claim that defies the laws of the universe, you just have to supply evidence, or anyone can make any claim about anything.

Traak

2011-10-02, 07:12 AM

Baneblade

2011-10-02, 08:01 AM

It wasn't an entrance into an Amazing Supernatural Things Some Doubter Has Witnessed contest. I know people do supernatural things that are not from God. The magicians of pharaoh did similar miracles to Moses for the first few miracles. It's old news to say that the ungodly can also do supernatural things. Thousands of years old.

God doing something for someone that isn't at a ridiculous level of spectacular enough to make you say "Wow, now if that happens twice on a Tuesday, THEN I will believe" isn't what he's about. Sure, God loves everyone. But he can't make them believe anything.

I mean, there was pharaoh, on the edge of a sea that had been split open, the sea bed made capable of being walked over by millions, and this by the God that he had made himself an enemy of, and he drives right into it to pursue the people said God had just demanded he set free. You think he might have stopped and said "Wow, now if he just makes the entire sea dry up, or turn into wine, or turn into gold coins, THEN I will realize he is God."? Whatever went through his mind, he pursued, the sea came back down, and he and his entire army were destroyed.

The Egyptians suffered days, possibly weeks of miraculous events and Pharaoh yet hardened his heart. He was eyewitness to greater things than your pagan shamans could ever DREAM of doing. And he still hardened his heart. Did god manifesting vast power change his heart? No.

And it won't change yours, either.

Gideon challenged god to prove his existance and the proof came. God told us to challenge him, for a blind believer is a fool. Why am I overlooked when I am also not willing to be a blind believer?

In the Bible god had a habit of doing obviously supernatural miracles that leave no question that something is unnaturally accomplished... yet we are supposed to accept that suddenly the evidence of gods power are transcribed words in a book that has been heavily edited and abridged? Or that you are a mutant that can heal other people?

Where are they?

Traak

2011-10-02, 08:29 AM

Gideon challenged god to prove his existance and the proof came. God told us to challenge him, for a blind believer is a fool. Why am I overlooked when I am also not willing to be a blind believer?

You aren't overlooked. Gideon asked for a sign. Note it didn't say that Gideon found a proponent of God's power and demanded that he provide proof. He talked to God himself. As I said, talk to God and ask him to verify his existence. If he doesn't do anything, he doesn't exist. He has verified his existence thousands of times in my life. I have no trouble believing. Go to the source. Me and millions like me did.

However, there is a difference between sincerely seeking God to help you know he is real, and snidely trying to get him to perform tricks for your entertainment.

Luke 4
9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:

11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Jesus did not laud Thomas for doubting the word of others who reported he was alive, he said that blessed are those who have not seen, yet have believed.

John 20
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

I don't have to see God to believe he is real any more than I have to see you to believe you are real. I see your words, I know you are real. How is that so hard?

I have no evidence except your words that you even exist. What evidence do we have that anyone will do anything on our behalf? Our employer says we get paid on Friday. We get paid. Did we demand physical evidence, did we have to see a truck roll up to the bank and put cash in for us? No, we were told something, we believed it.

You operate on what you call "blind faith" all the time. Did you have evidence, an engineering report, that every chair you have ever sat in would not collapse? Yet you blindly sat down, not knowing if there were poisoned punji sticks waiting to impale your glutes. Blind faith again.

Our lives are run by believing stuff we have no way of knowing for sure is real until we put faith in it and act like it is. Do you get out and examine the roads you drive on to verify they aren't cleverly disguised traps, waiting to collapse beneath you? Loaded with IED's waiting to blow you up? No, you blithely drive around without a thought of all that. Blind faith, again.

Do you test every bottle of soda for all known toxins before you imbibe? No, you just open and drink. Blind faith.

And yet, it is so difficult to believe in a God you haven't seen? He went to great lengths to give you a book to read. Just like I am reading your words, and I know you are real, you can read his and know he is real.

If someone on the internet sent death threats to you, and wrote your address to you so you knew he knew where you lived, would you do nothing? Or, again, in blind faith, would you take some precautions? Having nothing but words on a screen as evidence.

Conversely, if you had a winning lottery ticket, would you not rejoice? Having never seen the money, having never met anyone else who had ever won, having never actually touched any evidence that the lottery was real, and that real people actually won it, wouldn't you be glad? Your lottery ticket is just numbers printed on a slip of paper.

God knows all about you, where you live, and everything else, and he made promises to you, and anyone else who cares to partake in his Word. Take him at his Word. See if he fails.

Crator

2011-10-02, 08:34 AM

Traak

2011-10-02, 08:57 AM

Right. It's a theory. Which proves, by the fact that it is a theory, that it does not have enough proof to demonstrate that it is a fact.

So why do people believe it as if it is a fact?

Crator

2011-10-02, 09:04 AM

Faith Healing doesn't look like it produces very good things. Especially when taken out of context, as it seems you are doing:

Child Fatalities From Religion-motivated Medical Neglect (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/4/625.abstract)

A few studies have found no proof that faith healing works as well. Ever seen the movie "Leap of Faith"?:

http://www.quackwatch.org/dantest/faith.html
The notion that prayer, divine intervention or the ministrations of an individual healer can cure illness has been popular throughout history. Miraculous recoveries have been attributed to a myriad of techniques commonly lumped together as "faith healing. During the past forty years, several investigators have studied this subject closely and written about their findings.

Crator

2011-10-02, 09:10 AM

Right. It's a theory. Which proves, by the fact that it is a theory, that it does not have enough proof to demonstrate that it is a fact.

So why do people believe it as if it is a fact?

Ignorance is bliss?

Traak

2011-10-02, 09:26 AM

As I said. I don't think there is much I am going to say that is really going to change your mind. I am just telling what I believe, and what I have experienced.

Anything God does, people either believe or try to ignore or gloss over. It's been going on for millenia.

John 9
5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.
13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.
16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
18 But the **** did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.
22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the ****: for the **** had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

Same old same old. Someone gets something from God, people want to prove it isn't true.

As I have been saying, talk to God himself.

God created the universe, created man from the ground, created woman from the man, gave them to each other, gave them a few instructions, they disobeyed the critical one, sin came to the Earth, and with it, death. God promised to send a savior, he did, Jesus came, lived on the Earth, did miracles, was crucified, died spiritually, died physically, went to hell, paid the price for your sin and mine, was raised from the dead after being reborn alive to God again in hell, preached to the spirits who were confined to the upper part of the place of the dead, known as paradise and Abraham's Bosom, they all got born again, some collected their bodies on the way to heaven, and were seen in Jerusalem after Jesus' resurrection, which is when he came and collected his body, then appeared to some people on Earth, and then ascended to heaven.

50 days later, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was sent to dwell in the hearts of born-again men, and that was the start of the church, replete with people speaking in tongues.

Regrettably the Catholic pseudo-church organization gained hold of God's Word and removed it from the hands of the people for about 1000 years, and that was the dark ages. When men could again read the Word of God in their own language, science, technology, and advancements once again started occurring, at a far more rapid rate than ever before in history, because God knows everything, and people who hear from God can come up with ideas that are mere portions of his omniscience more easily than if they can't. This is one reason America came further in 200 years than China has in 5000. America was founded by Christians who acknowledged their need for the providence and guidance of almighty God, China was not.

And that brings us to the present day. No matter how modern we become, God is still God, and still deals with us on the basic issues of life. No amount of transistors or technology will ever make people so they are not people, murder so it is not murder, or love so it is not love. And the Word of God, in its perfect form, is God speaking to man.

Try reading the Bible. The King James, if you aren't stymied by Elizabethan-era English. The New King James is a close second in accuracy. Especially read the New Testament. God is still speaking through his words, and his words are exalted even higher than his very name.

If I wanted to know what someone was like, would it not be a great place to start to read everything they had ever written? Would you think you could develop a complete picture of Hitler's motivations without reading Mein Kampf? What have you got to lose? Valuable time you could instead spend on this forum? :D

To find out what God's like, read what he said.

Quovatis

2011-10-02, 10:39 AM

You obviously have no grasp of science if you don't know what a scientific "theory" is. A hypothetical and unproven scientific idea is called a hypothesis. After many tests, experiments, and attempts to disprove it fail, it is promoted to "theory" status. A scientific theory isn't just a guess, it's as close to a fact as science can provide. Evolution is a scientific fact. Scientific observations that can be repeated over and over are called "laws" (e.g. the law of gravity). Evolution can never become a "law" because it doesn't fit the terminology.

How do we know George Washington existed? There are numerous accounts of his existence from people that couldn't care less if he existed or not. The accounts are also first-hand and written while he was living (unlike the bible). There is also physical evidence to support his existence from belonging, to portraits of him, and his descendants.

Crator

2011-10-02, 11:03 AM

I have. I grew up in a southern baptist church. I've heard all you have said before.

Traak

2011-10-02, 11:05 AM

The Bible consists of many first-hand accounts written by people who were there when those things happened. Did you think we just waited until last year and printed us up an approximation of what we figure should have happened?

And, how about people in history that don't have any portraits of themselves? Since that kind of evidence seems to matter to you? No one in history has existed but people who have had a portrait painted?

We have the descendants of Abraham with us to this day: **** and Arabs. The **** from Isaac, the Arabs from Ishmael. **** can trace their genealogies back for millenia. Does that make them more real than George?

But, these things are not the root issues. The root issue is and always has been whether people want to accept God's lordships and rulership of their lives, or create their own set of rules, whether a false religion or a non-religion, and follow that instead. Adam was the first to reject God's rule. He sure wasn't the last.

The central issue always boils down to this: believe on Jesus Christ and confess his lordship, or don't, and use whatever excuses you choose to justify it. Everything else is just a different wrapper. Jesus loves you.

Evilmp

2011-10-02, 11:27 AM

And people have a free will, and they can do that. It's their choice. Often it becomes all elaborate,
with charts and graphs, and whatever, but the root thing is still a choice.

10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead
and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 “This is what you are
to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 They found among the
people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they
took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

13 Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon. 14 So
the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been
spared. But there were not enough for all of them.

15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16
And the elders of the assembly said, “With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide
wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs,” they said, “so that a
tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can’t give them our daughters as wives, since we
Israelites have taken this oath: ‘Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.’ 19 But look,
there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, which lies north of Bethel, east of the road that
goes from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”

20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the
young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you
seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or
brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not
get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not
give your daughters to them.’”

23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one
and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and
settled in them.

24 At that time the Israelites left that place and went home to their tribes and clans, each to his own
inheritance.

Judges 21:10-24 NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+21%3A10-24&version=NIV

A choice between kidnapping, rape and murder,

or living peacefully without fear of a totalitarian overlord watching me sleep?

No book is needed for morals. Morals are innate, and I can tell these texts are the definition of evil. Now, it's your turn to give ground by saying the bible's stories aren't exactly true so you can pick and choose which ones you want to believe.

How much do you want to bet he'll choose the ones that don't involve rape?

CutterJohn

2011-10-02, 11:35 AM

Right. It's a theory. Which proves, by the fact that it is a theory, that it does not have enough proof to demonstrate that it is a fact.

So why do people believe it as if it is a fact?

The fact that gravity is a theory does not prevent the motion of the planets in their orbits or protect your head when you fall of a ladder. That gravity exists is undisputed. What is in doubt is the exact mechanism behind it. We have good approximations, but they are still just approximations.

The theory of relativity is just a theory. It doesn't change the fact that relativity must be accounted for in order to make your GPS work. It just means that our understanding of relativistic motion is incomplete. It is a good approximation of the truth in most circumstances, just as newtons laws of motion(law is a colloquial term no longer in use by scientists) are a good approximation of motion at slow speeds where not a lot of precision is needed.

Evolution is a fact, the same as gravity and relativity. Life does change over time, significantly so, due to a variety of pressures. It is supported on the micro scale by direct observation, and on the macro scale by numerous examples of fossil records showing step by step how organisms changed, genetic studies showing how animals are related, and in your own body.. You yourself have vestigial organs. There are vestigial nictitating membranes in your eyes. Touch your pinky and thumb together then bend your wrist in. That tendon? That does nothing for you. Its commonly scavenged in order to repair other tendons around the body in surgeries. Its the tendon that extends claws. You may not have it though. We're in the process of losing it, just as only some can wiggle their ears.

The theory of evolution means that we have an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms driving evolution.

MadPenguin

2011-10-02, 11:42 AM

What evidence do you have that there was ever a George Washington? Written history.

You believe many things that are just words in books. Without having ever been there or met anyone who was. That's evidence enough, isn't it? Take evolution, for example. People believe in evolution. They say they have evidence. But, unearthing a skeleton, or just a tooth, and stating that it proves evolution? Were they even there when it happened?

Evidence. I'm not almighty. I can't find everyone who has ever gotten healed by God, everywhere. As I said, ask God for evidence. He's almighty, he'll be glad to help you out. If he doesn't, well, then you're off the hook. But to ask a finite servant of an infinite God for evidence of something that you could just as easily ask the infinite God for? Why? So if I don't provide it, you have your excuse not to believe?

You dont seem to understand that extraordinary claims require at the least SOME evidence.
If you meet up with your mate and he says he walked to meet you, he doesnt need to provide you with evidence for you to accept this, though he could be lying. It doesnt matter. However, if he claims he flew without the aid of technology first, then walked over water for a little of the distance and teleported the rest, you would rightly be dubious. This kind of claim (the kind that goes against the laws of the universe) DOES require some evidence for you to believe it.
The claim "George Washing existed" isnt in violation of any of the laws of the universe, saying you can heal people through God or that God can speak to you or that natural disasters only began once humans began sinning are extraordinary claims that DO require some evidence for belief, especially since we have good reasons not to believe these things.
This applies to pretty much everything you have said in your last few posts. "Blind faith" as you put it isnt needed, you just need probability for things like checking the road etc.

Go to the source. Bypass the disciple, and talk to the Master. He's open 24/7. If God doesn't respond to someone who is sincerely interested in knowing if He exists, then he doesn't.

I was born and raised a christian and only became atheist at the age of 18, i often did talk to God and pray to him, he never answered my prayers or spoke to me and i had genuine interest in knowing him. So then you will admit he doesnt exist?

Right. It's a theory. Which proves, by the fact that it is a theory, that it does not have enough proof to demonstrate that it is a fact.

So why do people believe it as if it is a fact?

The idea that we orbit the Sun is ONLY A THEORY. It cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, just like we cant prove that really this entire reality isnt just a figment of my imagination, or like we cant prove faires arent real. By that reasoning, NOTHING can be called a fact. But this isnt a useful stance to take, so we just call things fact when we have overwhelming reasons to believe them.

Firefly

2011-10-02, 11:52 AM

What evidence do you have that there was ever a George Washington? Written history.
The American Revolution. American independence. Portraits for which he sat, all showing the exact same thing. His personal papers and belongings. His grave.

Oh, and about eight thousand people who are related to George Washington. Our first president didn't have any children himself, but his other family members did. There's a guy in San Antonio Texas whose family bears the name Washington and they count George's brother Samuel as direct descendants. Also, Hillary Clinton is a cousin (albeit like six or seven times removed) of George Washington, as are the Bush presidents. In fact, a genealogist study determined that all US presidents (including Obama) are related at some point. Granted, most of these are like tenth cousins with a lot of times-removed. Which can be said for a lot of people in the world.

None of this is really important. Fact of the matter is, ample physical evidence exists - living, deceased and/or inanimate - to prove the existence of George Washington. But I don't see many people running around claiming to be a third cousin six times removed of the Almighty. Yes, people say "I'm a child of G'd" but they aren't blood relatives. Some attempts have been made to trace the actual blood lineage of Jesus, in spite of the fact that the Catholic church and other religious institutions adhere to the strict doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin - a notion which is extremely laughable. Note that this is not the lineage that comes from Jesus' loins, which is typically garbage perpetuated by hacks like the guy that wrote "Da Vinci Code". This would be from so-called cousins and half-brothers.

The thing that pisses me off the most about Christianity is that many works have been suppressed due to having been judged as "non-canonical" or apocryphal or outright heretical. Anything that did not fit with the Council of Nicaea's definition of Christianity, anything that cast doubt or outright changed anything they had written, was either destroyed or suppressed. A lot of these apocryphal texts are allegedly in the Vatican somewhere. Whatever Early Christianity was, it was changed by that Council. Which was a bunch of men, motivated to form a religion and keep it following a singular path.

Unfortunately, modern science and technology have shown a high number of inaccuracies. And when you cast doubt upon one single aspect of something that is upheld as an ironclad case, it calls into question everything else.

The Bible consists of many first-hand accounts written by people who were there when those things happened.
Maybe in the New Testament, and only up to a certain point. Some of the New Testament comes from letters written by people. The Old Testament, however, comes from an untold amount of anonymous texts, all of which have been heavily edited prior to reaching "modern" times. Genesis and Exodus were not written as eyewitness accounts. The Christian Old Testament comes from the Tanakh, which defines Judaism as you and I know it. The Tanakh, for those of you who don't know anything about my religion, consists of three parts - the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim.

A comparison by New Testament scholars was made between the seven major critical editions of the Greek New Testament, verse-by-verse. Guess what? Less than 65% of the verses were found to be variant-free: meaning, over 35% of the verses in the seven major New Testaments do not match with each other.

Did you think we just waited until last year and printed us up an approximation of what we figure should have happened?
Not last year, no. At the Council of Nicaea, in AD 325, your Christian leaders got together to figure out what parts of the Tanakh and what letters, documents, and scrolls throughout the last four hundred years should be compiled to achieve consensus. How much truth did they conveniently erase or ignore, just to achieve consensus and compromise?

YOU CANNOT COMPROMISE ON THE TRUTH. Either it did happen, or it did not. There is no middle ground.

In other words, a lot of stuff was changed, edited, redacted, or outright discarded in order to fit a version of history that doesn't match with historical documents from elsewhere. They created their own brand of history (history is written by the victors) that, until the rise of Protestantism, was unchallenged and unrivaled.

Quovatis

2011-10-02, 03:57 PM

Firefly

2011-10-02, 04:50 PM

There are no first-hand accounts in the new testament. Read the preface in any good bible and it will tell you that. The gospels are not written by the person they are named after. They were written many years afterwards based on second-hand accounts.
Your first part is correct, but the last bit is not. Whether the accounts were written the day after Jesus was crucified or thirty years or even seventy years later, the fact is they were still penned by either the original witnesses or during the lives of the original witnesses by someone who directly recorded their testimony. If the events that are described in the gospels are not true, those who knew better had the ability to speak out against their reliability. Additionally, Roman officials who were not supportive of the rebellious nature of Jesus' words had every reason to speak up and discredit the authors of Biblical material. That they did not do so, that a mighty empire was not able to discredit something which would tear it apart, tells its own tale. Furthermore, the original witnesses and those who transcribed original eyewitness accounts had everything to lose - family, friends, livelihood, homes, even lives - by writing what they did. The Roman Empire was not a forgiving entity as it pertained to treason, sedition, and rebellion.

CutterJohn

2011-10-02, 11:27 PM

hat they did not do so, that a mighty empire was not able to discredit something which would tear it apart, tells its own tale.

Yeah, that they thought some upstart little religion off in the far reaches of the empire that was a twist on an older religion they were used to dealing with was not a big deal. These things happened constantly back then. There was always a new punk somewhere proclaiming some new prophesy or claiming to have a direct link to god or the truth.

The romans were also used to dealing with a wide range of religious beliefs among the widely varied peoples they ruled over, and foreign cults/religions existed and were practiced even in rome, some more openly than others. Julius Caesar allowed the **** to openly practice in rome.

So, to the romans, they likely just viewed it as judaism 2.0, some new take on that weird religion those other people practice.. Think nothing of it.

Effective

2011-10-07, 10:27 AM

I think of it this way. Even if God exists. I wouldn't want to worship someone who's so insecure he requires your praise in order to get through the day. And then goes ahead and leaves thousands to die from starving in poverty who then proceed to straight to hell since they aren't of that particular religion.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Sorry. I don't worship scumbags. No offense intended.

Rbstr

2011-10-07, 02:19 PM

Your first part is correct, but the last bit is not. Whether the accounts were written the day after Jesus was crucified or thirty years or even seventy years later, the fact is they were still penned by either the original witnesses or during the lives of the original witnesses by someone who directly recorded their testimony.

I don't want to disagree too much with you here, but, while not impossible for some the gospels to be written by the historical figures themselves, it is very unlikely many are... Some were certainly written second hand, as dictation at best (John, likely written around 80-95, which would be a long lifespan today) and others were written from further removed (Luke and Act's preference contain statements regarding witness accounts being handed down from others).

In any case:
All portions were certainly subject to both translation error and substantial editing to get anywhere near modern forms. Calling the Bible a truthful, trustworthy or accurate historical document is a humongous stretch in the light of that. If you could somehow find and verify original documents, you might be able to claim they were accurate to some degree.

Right. It's a theory. Which proves, by the fact that it is a theory, that it does not have enough proof to demonstrate that it is a fact.
So why do people believe it as if it is a fact?
That is not what the terminology means.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/ provides a good description in the context of evolution.

Theories are explanations for Laws (those are "Facts") that have been upheld by observation. In many cases we know that they aren't the true answer. The common example is gravity:
It's a thing that happens, there is no denying that the phenomenon exits, it is a fact, it is a Law. People often say Newton's gravitational theory is wrong...but that's not really true, it works very well. Newton's theory falls out of Einstein's theory when the right conditions are met. When we finally get a theory of everything, Einstein's theory and Newtons theory will likely be simplifications or derivations of that model (model and theory are often sort of interchangeable).

With in this you run into the singular reason religion's fantastic elements should never be relied upon as a decision making tool or method to produce some kind of interaction. It lacks any kind of observable predicted outcome, it cannot be tested. If something can't produce interactions with reality it doesn't exist in real terms.

Note, that I wouldn't discount some of religion's philosophical and ethical arguments. If Jesus said some good stuff, divinity doesn't matter.
The critical thing is: If he said some bad things, divinity shouldn't be a reason to listen.

Lonehunter

2011-10-08, 12:11 AM

What ever happened to teenage Jesus? Anyone know if they're gonna make a prequel about it any time soon?

Malorn

2011-10-08, 06:35 AM

Meh.

Firefly

2011-10-08, 10:34 AM

What motivated Bin Ladin? The US association with Israel and the Palestinain conflict. His goal was to get the US to back down and stop supporting Israel. He used religion to coerce for political and economic (for the Palestinians) reasons.
This is incorrect. Bin Laden didn't give a shit about the Palestinians *UNLESS* it was as yet another means to condemn the US. *NOBODY* in the Middle East cares about the Palestinians because if they did, that whole area would turn into a hotbed of dissent until Israel gave up and said "Fine, give them this land." You'll notice that the Palestinians are refugees anywhere but Palestine. You don't see the Egyptians or Syrians or Jordanians bending over backwards to give up territory to the Palestinians. The average Arab in the Middle East views the Palestinian as a second-class citizen. They are like Mexican illegals to the Americans. They aren't even a real people, per se. The term "Palestinian" comes from the British Mandate for Palestine. Up until the mid-60s, they didn't really exist as a national body or identity. The people who identify as Palestinian are largely descended from converted Muslims in Ottoman Syria, former **** and Christians. Again, up until the mid-60s they just sort of identified as Arabs or Syrians. A significant number of Palestinians are Christian. Because of these two things, Bin Laden had no real reason to use them as anything more than a platform to rail against Israel and the US, and only when it suited him.

What motivated Bin Laden was two things: 1) the United States had a military presence in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and that was too close to sacred ground. 2) The United States propped up petty dictators and tyrants in the Middle East and coddled them, allowing these Arab dictators to oppress Arabs.

Malorn

2011-10-08, 11:23 AM

Meh.

Firefly

2011-10-08, 11:33 AM

To Bin Laden, it was. His religious views on infidels in the Holy Land drove him to wage jihad against the United States and its allies, indeed anyone who supported them. I count four religious-based terms, which I've bold-texted for you.

We may view them as political terms, but religion and politics often go hand-in-hand with religious extremists. Bin Laden struck at political and economic targets, but religion was his prime motivator. Secondary to that came politics.

MasterChief096

2011-10-08, 01:17 PM

To make a claim that religion does not belong in politics is very, very dumb. Over 90% of the world is religious in one way or the other. That means approximately 5.5-6 billion people have some sort of religious view (other than atheism or agnosticism of course). That is a large amount of people, this makes it impossible to have politics completely free of religious influence. Atheists and agnostics are a small percentage in the world now. There are around 800 million atheists and agnostics, but that is still a small number in relation to everyone else. Of course the number of atheists and agnostics is growing, but until 100% of the people in the world are non-religious then religion will play a part in political dealings. Hell I wouldn't be so far as to doubt that some politicians outright lie about their religion just so they don't lose votes for claiming themselves to be atheist or agnostic.

DviddLeff

2011-10-08, 04:53 PM

Not read through the whole 10 pages, but here is my quick response on Science vs religion, but bear in mind I am a Science teacher:

When teaching Science I come across religion in the following places:
1. Big bang and Evolution vs Creationism.
2. The Earth orbits the Sun vs the Sun is carried around the Earth by a dung beetle/chariot/boat

That is all.

No question of if God exists, no question as to if the holy books are fiction and both are unlikely to ever be proven wrong conclusively.

Now Science cannot answer everything; we currently have piss all clue as to what there was (if anything) before the Big Bang, we can't explain a ton of stuff about gravity, why galaxies move the way they do (dark matter is simply the problems answer named but not understood) and we do not know why far away galaxies appear to be accelerating (again dark energy is a fix to answer a question we don't know). Hell, we can't even say how the gravity of Earth keeps you in your seat, our Religious Education teacher tells the kids its gravity fairies; when they then come to ask me if it is I tell them it may as well be, scientists just call them gravitons instead.

Now personally do I believe in a God? No, I do not; I have not seen any evidence and am not convinced that the average energy density of the Universe being just so gives us that evidence.

Yet religion is an ultimately good thing, it provides society with a set of moral values which go a long way towards improving it, yet as we are all aware there are extremists and those who would abuse religion for selfish and immoral ends. In the UK we see families and communities fragmenting as the order and rules that religion provides disappears from lives, as people become increasingly selfish. Now this is certainly not the only reason, but it is certainly a factor.

Firefly

2011-10-08, 11:25 PM

All of the religious people I've talked to say the only thing taught in Sunday School classes follows along the lines of G-d created the heavens and the earth. Even religion acknowledges that science explains how things work. None of the people I have ever talked to have said anything about gravity fairies, for example.

MadPenguin

2011-10-09, 03:59 PM

To make a claim that religion does not belong in politics is very, very dumb.

Depends what you mean, religious views can have a say in politics sure, you can be motivated by religion to try and make abortion illegal (well, i personally would just try and get the time after which you can get an abortion reduced, but whatever). What religion CANNOT do (or at least shouldn't be able to do) is come to a serious debate like abortion or a debate about stem cell research and say "you cant do that, its against my religion", you have to argue your case using reason like anyone else. You also cant say "your not allowed to do stem cell research, the collections of 150 cells have souls" You cant base your argument on the existence of souls since there is no reason to believe in souls.

So i reiterate, religious views are fine in politics, as long as they are argued properly, and not by simply playing the "faith card" and other such tricks. I think (hope) thats what other atheists or whatever mean when they say religion shouldnt affect politics, thats at least what i mean.

Yet religion is an ultimately good thing, it provides society with a set of moral values which go a long way towards improving it, yet as we are all aware there are extremists and those who would abuse religion for selfish and immoral ends. In the UK we see families and communities fragmenting as the order and rules that religion provides disappears from lives, as people become increasingly selfish. Now this is certainly not the only reason, but it is certainly a factor.

This kind of statement coming from an atheist is worrying to me, surely you are in a very good position to see that religion is not needed for a good set of morals? Its nice religion can give people morals, but people would have these morals anyway. Your claim about family fragmentation being a result of lack of religious rules... well, again, you should be in a perfect position to see that a lack of a religion doesnt affect this kind of thing. I doubt you would ever leave your wife (imaginary or not) because you arent religious. If you were unhappy with your wife, religion wouldnt keep you together. If you are saying religion encourages people to stay in unhappy marriages, how is that a good thing?

Sirisian

2011-10-09, 07:37 PM

I think MadPenguin summed up the 'ol secular humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism) argument very well that a lot of Atheists adhere to.

None of the people I have ever talked to have said anything about gravity fairies, for example.
Blasphemy. Pastafarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) believes all particles should be together and FSM pulls them toward one another with his his infinite noodly appendages. Common sense really.

Crator

2011-10-09, 10:27 PM

Quovatis

2011-10-09, 11:15 PM

The thing that scares me the most in all of that and this is slightly off topic. We are attempting ( and I believe succeeded ) in the creation of a stabalized black hole with the hadron super collider.... shouldnt be fucking with things of that massive magnitude with our current technology and comprehension of things to do with the universe.....

No, we have not created a black hole, and never will in the near future. Most estimates are that you need a collider as big as the orbit of the earth around the sun to produce a black hole. And even if we did, it would evaporate almost instantly from Hawking radiation. There is no danger.

As for the beginning of the universe, remember that time has no meaning before the big bang. It makes no sense to say "before" the big bang because time as we understand it is tied to space and doesn't exist without the universe. What caused the big bang is currently beyond our scientific knowledge, but that could change in the future, as have many many things in the past. Just giving up and saying god did it is not a solution.

Sirisian

2011-10-09, 11:51 PM

then go back a step before that.

Something, somewhere, somehow, some which way had to start it. Period. End. FTW.
You're kind of assuming "nothing" exists when you say that. There was a recent Bill Nye narrated movie about that on youtube. Forgot what it was called.

CutterJohn

2011-10-10, 12:03 AM

The existence of God is not enough to explain the existence of the Universe. If it is valid to say "everything has a cause except God", it is more likely that everything has a cause except the Universe. If God doesn't need a cause because it is infinite, it is more likely that the natural Universe has existed forever and therefore doesn't need a cause.

Yep. Saying god did it just pushes the question back one layer. God made the universe? K, then who or what made god?

Not that god did it isn't a tempting answer. The fact that anything at all exists is positively ludicrous. Either something sprang from a nothingness so uncomprehendable that even labeling it 'nothingness' is a gross misrepresentation, or something has always existed. Both are equally absurd.

Rather like the old quote about aliens from Clarke.. "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering."

Effective

2011-10-10, 10:26 AM

The good old God of Gaps explanation "We don't know what caused it, so it must be God". Stupid.

Sirisian

2011-10-11, 03:00 AM

Either something sprang from a nothingness so uncomprehendable that even labeling it 'nothingness' is a gross misrepresentation, or something has always existed. Both are equally absurd.
It's only absurd to humans at this current time. We place so much meaning on "something", like matter, that "nothing", like the perceived void between electrons and protons, has to exist as a comparison. (It doesn't. Just because stuff exists doesn't mean there was a point it didn't exist). Trying to apply "nothing" to the physical world is a big leap. One might go "but space is empty" when in fact that's a very complicated topic where most people would say there's no such thing as a true vacuum and bring up things like zero-point energy and how space-time bends with heavy masses. If you want to blow your mind just think of two large objects in space and realize there is nothing you can place between the objects to stop them from being attracted to one another so their interaction is generally immeasurable except if you measure the perceived force based on the objects. Similar to if you have two people pulling on a rope you can see the force in the form of tension. When you remove the rope you wonder how the two are attracted together (by gravity) and then you realize there's something really complicated happening in the vacuum between the objects that you can't see or measure. There's a reason scientists spend their lives on such questions.

Traak

2011-10-11, 03:42 AM

God wrote that he created the heavens and the Earth in the Word of God.

MadPenguin

2011-10-11, 07:23 AM

God wrote that he created the heavens and the Earth in the Word of God.

lol, i missed your input traak. Earlier today i flew to the sun and ate a peice of it...

evidence please, or failing that, at least give me SOME reason to believe that.

Traak

2011-10-11, 08:12 AM

Proof? He had holy men of old write as they were inspired by the Spirit of God. Proof that you would accept? Dunno. :) Not trying to convince anyone. Just stating.

MadPenguin

2011-10-11, 10:55 AM

He had holy men of old write as they were inspired by the Spirit of God.

I didnt ask you to restate your hypothesis, i asked you to give me reasons to believe it.

Proof that you would accept? Dunno. Not trying to convince anyone. Just stating.

Not proof, a single good reason to believe, lets start there. Cant be too hard right?
Why take part in an adult debate if your not willing to argue or support your claims?

Effective

2011-10-11, 10:59 AM

Proof? He had holy men of old write as they were inspired by the Spirit of God. Proof that you would accept? Dunno. :) Not trying to convince anyone. Just stating.

In other words, a group of semi-crazy people wrote a book filled with out-dated bronze age "ethics". I use the term ethics lightly since the acts that are approved of in the bible are downright wrong (in the bad, evil sense) sometimes.

Quovatis

2011-10-11, 11:17 AM

In other words, a group of semi-crazy people wrote a book filled with out-dated bronze age "ethics". I use the term ethics lightly since the acts that are approved of in the bible are downright wrong (in the bad, evil sense) sometimes.

Yep, and christians and **** now conveniently ignore the bits that don't fit in with today's morality. I guess they know better than god. God said slavery is ok, but we know better! Where is the outrage from **** and christians on banning slavery? It is the word of god after all and it's not up to us to second guess god's morality, right? And if god is wrong on slavery, why assume god is right on everything else?

Baneblade

2011-10-12, 02:03 AM

Don't forget, the Bible also rationalizes genocide.

Sirisian

2011-10-12, 12:32 PM

Believe in something or die for nothing fellas....
That quote generally doesn't apply here. You can believe in something and then die for nothing. Look at religious wars from the perspective of an Atheist. The people fighting are dying for nothing.

"If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything" is the more unbiased way to write it.

Effective

2011-10-12, 12:43 PM

Believe in something or die for nothing fellas....

This is what we believe - the world and the universe through the eyes of "non-believers" - YouTube

Traak

2011-10-13, 12:09 AM

Yep, and christians and **** now conveniently ignore the bits that don't fit in with today's morality. I guess they know better than god. God said slavery is ok, but we know better! Where is the outrage from **** and christians on banning slavery? It is the word of god after all and it's not up to us to second guess god's morality, right? And if god is wrong on slavery, why assume god is right on everything else?

If the average person has a choice between slavery and death, what would they choose? Evidently, slavery, because slavery still exists, and not every single slave commits suicide the very microsecond they become one. Slavery still exists today. If you are so against it, explain to us what you, personally, have done to stop it. With proof. Show us how you have spent every single cent you own to stop it. Why haven't you done so? Can't afford it? Multiply this by a few billion, and you will see why slavery exists.

When people face death by starvation or whatever other means, and there aren't enough people, like yourself, who are magnanimous enough to do anything that costs them any money to help them out, they are faced with choices. Among those choices is certain death. Another of those choices is slavery. Not all slaves are willing slaves. But, slavery as an alternative, hopefully temporary, to certain death is often an economic reality.

In Thailand, slavery is practiced, possibly, almost as much as it is in Dubai, which I regard as the human trafficking center of the world. A charter plane full of girls arrives from former Soviet countries daily, so I am told by people in Dubai. Who knows how much is going on that they don't know about.

But, back to S.E. Asia. Slavery, sex slavery, is practiced here a lot. But, if you ask the average person who is in that (I don't know, I've never met one, that I knew of) "how about if, instead of being a sex slave, you just slowly starve to death?" I think the answer would be being a sex slave.
Is all slavery people saving the poor and starving from death? No. Is all slavery a choice? No. But, slavery as an alternative to dying? Most would choose slavery.

Have you ever read the Bible? Any of it? How about all of it?

Have you read the rules regarding servants in the Old Testament? If so, please enlighten us, what does it say, exactly? I mean, the entire concept, in context, with the rules and regulations that pertain to it. Remember, this was in a world with no Christ, no Christians, Holy Spirit not resident in people in the Earth. It was a much harder, darker time. For many, it was "slavery or death." There wasn't welfare, liberals to murder the unborn so they weren't born to become poor people, or whatever else. Unlike welfare today, slavery was the welfare system where you survived by working. Was it desirable to be a slave? Is it EVER desirable? It beats dying, however.

Actually, from a Christian perspective, we live by the New Testament. Just like Adam's sons married, ostensibly, Adam's daughters, but incest was only outlawed with the beginning of the Mosaic law, we don't live in that era anymore.

In the New Covenant era, unlike the Old Covenant era, people can be born again, in their heart, their spirit, their inner man, and become a new creation on the inside. This changes the whole tone of the planet. The 2000 years since Christ have seen more technological advancement than (what you believe to be) the hundreds of millions of years before him.

That is because men could now have God living inside them, directly, because their spirits are reborn in his image, and not dead, aka out of contact with God, which was how adults were, universally, in the Old Testament. It is likely, that given any nation or population, there are some Christians in it, and they act as a preserving force, whereas the entire population would be sinners, otherwise. Jesus said "ye are the salt of the Earth." Salt preserves.

And God has all scientific knowledge, so he can now reveal it directly to the common man, if said man has accepted Jesus as his savior, which leads to domino-effect ideas by other people all over.

When God's presence was in a temple of stone or cloth, he could not deal directly with the common man like he can today. Different era. He could speak to the judge, the prophet, the priest, and the king, because they were anointed by God. But, unlike the average Christian today, they did not have God resident in their spirit. Jesus had to make that available, and to do that he had to go to hell, and to do that, he had to die in sin, not his sin, but ours.

Exterminating an entire populace was used under the Old Testament times. This is the time of the New Covenant, and there are enough of God's people in the Earth that an entire population is not often so steeped in evil that they are irredeemable.

God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah if even ten righteous people were found in it. No righteous people to act as a preserving force, or insufficient numbers, (Lot and his family moved out by angels just before judgment fell) and the cities were destroyed.

God exterminated the entire population of Sodom and Gomorrah, towns where people could expect to be set upon by gangs of homosexual rapists. So, yes, God has condoned and executed genocide personally. Man has done similar at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, for the purpose of what? Ending the violence.

The flood was a response to the violence that filled the Earth

Genesis 6:13
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

When a people become irredeemably violent, they face genocide. The choices that lead to it are theirs, however. Genocide is the killing of all and any in an area. Any grenade thrown, any bomb dropped, without a census taken just prior to the time of impact to determine that there are no children present, is a scaled-down version of that.

Genocide is a level of destruction that sometimes becomes necessary to stop something worse. It has been practiced by God and people acting on his orders, for millenia, and practiced by man going against God's orders, also.

I know that, for the most part, "liberals" think genocide is wonderful, as long as it is only committed against the unborn, and at all other times it is evil. However, it isn't really how God views it.

Sirisian

2011-10-13, 12:35 AM

It doesn't bother you in the slightest that he designed humans in such a way that they could falter. Free will or not, the god most Christians relate to is omniscient making him capable of seeing his own doing. The common rewording Effective used sums up this point (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=597768&postcount=131). Your analogy of bombing a place and not checking if there are innocents is erroneous. In the view of a god it would be like knowing their whole life history before doing it and knowing you did nothing to stop their fate. Why kill at that point? The ability to do anything and show mercy is apparently beyond Him? I don't know how anyone can defend genocide toward anyone especially if you stood by and let it come to that.

I know that, for the most part, "liberals" think genocide is wonderful, as long as it is only committed against the unborn, and at all other times it is evil. However, it isn't really how God views it.
You don't know how God views it. That's the whole point.

Effective

2011-10-13, 04:39 AM

Truthfully traak? I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate conservative (I.E. I'm in the middle on some policies but lean towards more conservative). That being said, I think abortion is fine as long as it isn't used as a form of birth control. And before you ask what I mean here's an explanation.

If a woman is raped, and she becomes pregnant, I see no issues with abortion unless for some reason she wants the child.

If the child being born is going to have health issues that will affect his/her ability to support herself, I see no issue.

If having the child will cause significant health problems (i.e. death) for the mother, I see no issues.

There's probably more, but those are the first ones that come to mind. I don't consider an embryo a person, not even close.

As far as reading the bible, yes, I assume quovatis has read most of the bible, most atheist are more knowledgeable about religion then the actual practitioners of said religion.

Would you like us to bring up the bits in the bible that approve of genocide, rape, murder, stealing (pillage/plunder), outright lies, slavery, or any random miscellaneous bits that are not people friendly?

CutterJohn

2011-10-13, 08:19 AM

Jesus said "ye are the salt of the Earth." Salt preserves.

Salting the earth, or sowing with salt, is the ritual of spreading salt on conquered cities to symbolize a curse on its re-inhabitation. It originated as a practice in the ancient Near East and became a well-established folkloric motif in the Middle Ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth)

So pretty much JC said we're a curse on the earth. :D

He also said he wasn't here to end the old laws. They all apply.

Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Ofc then theres Luke..

16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Lordy lordy, whats one to think? JC says they aren't binding, and in the very same breath says they are. I think it was probably the wine.

It was a nice attempt at retconning though. I can just imagine some guy sitting there, lamenting how people are kinda pissed at the religions restrictions.. I got it! We'll say they no longer apply!

Firefly

2011-10-13, 08:30 AM

I know that, for the most part, "liberals" think genocide is wonderful, as long as it is only committed against the unborn, and at all other times it is evil. However, it isn't really how God views it.
You know what ticks me off? That you use the word "liberal" like it's a fucking slur. Seriously - who the fuck are you to judge someone? Your ignorance and your hypocrisy are astounding.

You know what else ticks me off? That you presume that no liberal can be a true Christian. When, in fact, your Jesus was A FUCKING DIRTY HIPPIE SOCIALIST LIBERAL WHO INCITED REBELLION AGAINST THE LAWFUL GOVERNMENT. If you don't know any liberal Christians, that really doesn't surprise me.

You know what ELSE ticks me off? That you paint all liberals with the same brush. Lemme tell you something, kid. Of the women I know who have had abortions, my calculator says 80% of them are CHRISTIAN. 80% of them are CONSERVATIVE. My sister being one of them. I love how you judge my sister by calling her a slut or a career woman, a few pages back.

Now. Let me see. How many dirty liberal chicks do I know who got knocked up? Maybe three - probably because the other dozen or so practiced "good Christian values" and "good Jewish values" by abstaining or at least being smart enough to use protection. But that's beside the point - of the three liberal chicks I know, all of whom are Jewish, who got knocked up, how many had an abortion?

Zero.

How many of those three believe that abortion is good?

Zero.

How many of them contemplated having an abortion?

Zero.

Quovatis

2011-10-13, 09:45 AM

Have you ever read the Bible? Any of it? How about all of it?

Have you read the rules regarding servants in the Old Testament? If so, please enlighten us, what does it say, exactly? I mean, the entire concept, in context, with the rules and regulations that pertain to it.

I have. I'll be glad to enlighten you:

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Exodus 21:7-11: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. "

So basically, you can beat the shit out of your slaves as long as they don't die in 24 hours, or as long as you don't hurt their eyes or teeth. And if you're a slave and not a ***, you can never go free and you're SOL. Oh yeah, and it's perfectly legit to sell your own daughter as a sex slave. If she doesn't give good head, she can never be freed. What a nice god to allow such things. I guess I missed the part where you're supposed to be supper nice to them and take them as slaves because they were going to die from starvation.

I have to say, I'm quite appalled you basically think slavery today is ok under certain circumstances. I don't think it's ok under any circumstance. And it's silly you think I have to prove that I've tried to do something about it. There is a lot of fucked up things wrong with this world. I don't have the power to do much about it (but ironically god does, but chooses not to do anything about it). If slavery were still legal in the USA, you bet I would be out there protesting and voting to get it abolished. But thankfully, secularism pulled this country out of the dark ages in the last 200 years. The most fucked up countries on the planet are usually those who are theocracies.

MadPenguin

2011-10-13, 06:26 PM

The 2000 years since Christ have seen more technological advancement than (what you believe to be) the hundreds of millions of years before him.

I apologize if im wrong, but it appears that you are a young Earth Creationist, so perhaps you could explain to me why when we measure the distance to some stars and galaxies, it turns out it would take tens of thousands of years for the light emitted from these stars to reach us. In other words, if the world were 6000 years old, how come we can see objects tens of thousands of light years away and further, surely the light from these objects couldnt have reached us yet?

Quovatis made the point of slavery and Christians choose not to follow this demand by God, and you decided to attack the example but not the underlying logic.
When, for example, Jesus suggests his disciples should go forth and kill those who wont accept him as saviour in Luke 19. You are presented with 2 options:

Either you believe killing non-christians is a good thing (in which case we have a much more serious issue on our hands than what we are talking about)

Or (and i hope this is the case) you dont agree with the killing of non-christians for the crime of not following Christ. But once you admit this, it becomes clear that you arent actually following the bible, you are just using it to justify the God you believe in.

What you are effectively saying is: "not only does God exist, but out of the infinite possibile Gods, the one that actually exists is the one that i think is just right, he will judge people how i think people should be judged and act how i think he should act, what a stroke of luck."

It just becomes patently obvious to us at this point that your belief in the specific God you believe in is no more than wishful thinking. I could probably think of few Gods i would want to exist, but there is a difference between wanting something to be true and actually believing its true: to believe something is true (especially something of this much importance) you need reasons.

Traak

2011-10-17, 02:26 AM

I have. I'll be glad...I have to say, I'm quite appalled you basically think slavery today is ok under certain circumstances.

I didn't say it was okay. I figured you would warp what I said to try to make it say that. What I said was given the choice of slavery or death, most choose slavery. If someone gave you the choice of your kids being shot dead immediately, or working as underpaid slaves in some Nike factory, would you kill them? Or would you regard it as approving of slavery if you didn't?

Since the rest of your response was attempting to prove that I approve of slavery, I didn't quote it. The Old Testament rules were during a different age, as I have said.

Slavery is what most people choose if given a choice between slavery and death. In China, where slavery isn't really an option, they just kill baby girls instead of selling them.

Firefly

2011-10-17, 02:48 AM

I didn't say it was okay. I figured you would warp what I said to try to make it say that. What I said was given the choice of slavery or death, most choose slavery. If someone gave you the choice of your kids being shot dead immediately, or working as underpaid slaves in some Nike factory, would you kill them? Or would you regard it as approving of slavery if you didn't?
That's funny because I know I've read plenty of literature about slaves who chose escape and eventual punishment (accepting that beatings, whippings, lynching, and even murder can be expected as punishment), rather than live another day as a slave. I don't know what the statistics are because nobody really compiled stuff like that. But given the choice between slavery and death, I'd choose death. It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. I can't speak for anyone else here. But then again, I'm the guy that enlisted in the Army and served so that you and others like you didn't have to make that choice - so choosing certain death is not something at which I will blink if it means freedom.

In China, where slavery isn't really an option, they just kill baby girls instead of selling them.
This is antiquated and ignorant prejudice, if not outright misinformation. This practice does still exist in China, but only in rural areas - *AND* that's being combated by education, redefining of values, and China's brand of extremist justice. China's government recognised that this wasn't a good idea but failed to control it until the last 10-20 years. Now it's bitten them in the ass: they have way too many males, a lot of them are either single or turning to homosexuality/foreign women. China expressed dismay at this as recently as eight months ago and went so far as to document how they are combating it. A little bit of Google-fu will keep you from looking completely clueless.

Traak

2011-10-17, 02:49 AM

It doesn't bother you in the slightest that he designed humans in such a way that they could falter.

Actually, God created man and angels perfect. "Perfect" however does not mean "incapable of sinning."

Ezekiel 28: (speaking of Lucifer, later renamed Satan)
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

Lucifer was created perfect. This means flawless. God cannot be faulted for the sins of those he creates who are perfect. The choices, as ever, belong to us. Personal responsibility for sin is something that applies to all adults and all of the angelic race or races.

Hebrews 4: (speaking of Jesus)
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus was perfect. He was tempted. He did not sin. The fact that he was tempted means he was capable of faltering. However, he did not falter, fail, or sin.

Free will or not, the god most Christians relate to is omniscient making him capable of seeing his own doing. Your analogy of bombing a place and not checking if there are innocents is erroneous.

Again, and again, and again, you willfully forget that it is free will that decides how this world is now. God creating man with the ability to choose does not make God responsible for them sinning.

God gave us the Word of God, and it shows how to conduct yourself as an individual and in any group of any size. I'm not trying to get you to believe it. I don't care what you believe. I'm just telling you what I believe, and why. For you to say everything is God's fault because someone raped your dog, or whatever your pet peeve is, is erroneous. Everyone has choices. Most people's choices are under the auspices of Satan, who is the god of this world, and not directed by the Word of God.

In order for there to be a race of man, some of those, actually, the vast majority, in this present age, can be expected to be criminals, sinners, and evil. Since God delegates choice, he knew there would be people who choose him, and people who use whatever excuse they want to ignore him, actively fight him, kill his followers, etc.

But, just because some people will choose evil doesn't mean God is going to not have a human race. Why deprive me of a life just because someone like you doesn't want God? You will have your reward soon enough, and so will I.

God wasn't going to let the fact that some of the angels were going to rebel against him prevent him from having angels. He just prepared eternal fire for them, and, as it turns out, men who followed Satan, a fallen angel, will reside in the same place.

Beings that were going to be rebellious and evil wasn't and isn't going to prevent God from having a family that he has created any more than knowing people are going to use the internet for child pornography (that's considered evil, by the way) prevents man from building and expanding the internet.

Baneblade

2011-10-17, 03:32 AM

Lucifer was an angel, therefore did not have free will. Humans were created to be the chaos in god's order, because angels weren't interesting enough.

Traak

2011-10-17, 03:40 AM

Lucifer was an angel, therefore did not have free will. Humans were created to be the chaos in god's order, because angels weren't interesting enough.

Lucifer, as all angels, had free choice. He sinned. Where there is no choice, there is no sin. Sin is impossible where there is no choice, because that is assigning moral responsibility to someone who has no moral authority to make a choice. It would be like saying a baby sinned because it soiled its diaper.

Nowhere in God's Word does it say that God created anything for the purpose of chaos. I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm stating that you can't find what you stated, on either point, in God's Word.

Traak

2011-10-17, 03:50 AM

That's funny...

I didn't say that no one RISKED death to gain freedom. I said that, for the most part, slaves, to this day, do not commit suicide immediately upon being enslaved, so they have chosen slavery over death. It was a post or two back. The fact that slavery exists, and that all slaves do not instantly commit suicide the moment they are enslaved proves that slavery is the preferred choice if the other choice is death.

And, no baby girls being killed, aborted or left to die:

This practice does still exist in China...

Once again, you jump and holler, pointing at the Goodrich blimp, like Bill and Ted in the movie Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure, and bypass what I said.

I said in China, slavery, for the most part does not exist, so baby girls are killed instead of being sold as slaves.

The point is, where slavery exists as, sometimes, the only alternative to death, people generally choose slavery.

MadPenguin

2011-10-17, 05:24 AM

Again, and again, and again, you willfully forget that it is free will that decides how this world is now. God creating man with the ability to choose does not make God responsible for them sinning.

God gave us the Word of God, and it shows how to conduct yourself as an individual and in any group of any size. I'm not trying to get you to believe it. I don't care what you believe. I'm just telling you what I believe, and why. For you to say everything is God's fault because someone raped your dog, or whatever your pet peeve is, is erroneous. Everyone has choices. Most people's choices are under the auspices of Satan, who is the god of this world, and not directed by the Word of God.

In order for there to be a race of man, some of those, actually, the vast majority, in this present age, can be expected to be criminals, sinners, and evil. Since God delegates choice, he knew there would be people who choose him, and people who use whatever excuse they want to ignore him, actively fight him, kill his followers, etc.

But, just because some people will choose evil doesn't mean God is going to not have a human race. Why deprive me of a life just because someone like you doesn't want God? You will have your reward soon enough, and so will I.

God wasn't going to let the fact that some of the angels were going to rebel against him prevent him from having angels. He just prepared eternal fire for them, and, as it turns out, men who followed Satan, a fallen angel, will reside in the same place.

Beings that were going to be rebellious and evil wasn't and isn't going to prevent God from having a family that he has created any more than knowing people are going to use the internet for child pornography (that's considered evil, by the way) prevents man from building and expanding the internet.

To be honest, im a little tired of this, you arent saying anthing new, you are just saying the same thing over and over again, and we say "no, you are wrong because x, y and z." And then you just state your hypothesis again, so fustrating...

Traak

2011-10-17, 05:32 AM

Yes, I felt the same way. I state something, such as "Dogs are canines". Then someone "refutes" it with "OMG you are an idiot! Penguins are not mammals! LOLOLOL"

Plus, emotional blather, ridicule, the usual stuff people do when they don't really state anything relevant.

Baneblade

2011-10-17, 05:39 AM

Is all the multiposting really necessary?

MadPenguin

2011-10-17, 08:27 AM

Yes, I felt the same way. I state something, such as "Dogs are canines". Then someone "refutes" it with "OMG you are an idiot! Penguins are not mammals! LOLOLOL"

Whenever this has happened it has usually been as a result of your incomprehension of what we are saying.

Im willing to give this one more go i guess, nothing better to do.

Again, and again, and again, you willfully forget that it is free will that decides how this world is now. God creating man with the ability to choose does not make God responsible for them sinning.

This statement implies that using free will we can simply wish away things like natural disaster, which is of course wrong. If you are trying to say God cant be blamed for the free will of man then i have said before and i will say again i agree. Stop bringing this up. I have read every post in this thread, non of us blame God for anything, since we dont believe in him. We are saying that if God exists, then is X not true? I've said this before and i wont say it again.

For example, i said if God is omnipotent, there need not be any natural disasters. If God is benevolent, he doesnt want there to be any natural disasters because as we discussed, natural disasters are excess misery that isnt needed. So it follows logically that God cant be both omnipotent and benevolent. Again, i am NOT blaming God for them, i am saying if he is real, he cannot be both of these things.

Another interesting line of thought is that God puts the love/adoration/worship of himself above things like human well being, (since if we dont do these things he sends us to an eternity of conscious torment in fire (suposedly)) but he is all-loving towards us. Does that make him something stronger than "all-vain" or "all-narcissistic", either way, he has a serious ego.

There was also the issue of Christians picking and choosing what they believe from the Bible, i cant be arsed making the whole argument again so im just going to paste it.

When, for example, Jesus suggests his disciples should go forth and kill those who wont accept him as saviour in Luke 19. You are presented with 2 options:

Either you believe killing non-christians is a good thing (in which case we have a much more serious issue on our hands than what we are talking about)

Or (and i hope this is the case) you dont agree with the killing of non-christians for the crime of not following Christ. But once you admit this, it becomes clear that you arent actually following the bible, you are just using it to justify the God you believe in.

What you are effectively saying is: "not only does God exist, but out of the infinite possibile Gods, the one that actually exists is the one that i think is just right, he will judge people how i think people should be judged and act how i think he should act, what a stroke of luck."

It just becomes patently obvious to us at this point that your belief in the specific God you believe in is no more than wishful thinking. I could probably think of few Gods i would want to exist, but there is a difference between wanting something to be true and actually believing its true: to believe something is true (especially something of this much importance) you need reasons.

For the sake of not making this too long i'll stop there for now.

Accuser

2011-10-17, 08:58 AM

Lucifer was created perfect. This means flawless. God cannot be faulted for the sins of those he creates who are perfect. The choices, as ever, belong to us. Personal responsibility for sin is something that applies to all adults and all of the angelic race or races.

Let's assume that God exists, is omnipotent, is omniscient, and created the Universe.

This would mean that, before the Universe was created, God knew exactly what would happen at every moment in the coming Universe, and could tweak any moment to exist precisely as he desired it to.

Therefore, this must be the "best" Universe that could possibly be created, with respect to whatever it is that motivates God and defines what He would consider to be "best".

Interesting thing here is that morality, sin, temptation, ignorance of God (see Mayans, etc.) and rejection of God exist in this Universe. In fact, since every religion is a minority (with Christianity being the largest) it is a provable certainty that MOST humans believe in the wrong religion, regardless of what religion may be correct.

So, if the Christian God exists, His ideal Universe is one where most people reject Him and suffer eternal damnation. And that's to say nothing of the traditional "Why does evil exist?" argument. I find this situation to be quite interesting, as people historically have almost always followed the religion of their parents/region. The Koran in particular makes a very specific and logical argument as to why Christianity is wrong based on the First Commandment. This largely locks a young Muslim into his or her faith, even if that person is introduced to Christianity later in life. Thought of in this way, it's very hard to believe in the Christian God of Majority Damnation or any of the other less popular Gods.

Traak

2011-10-17, 09:25 AM

Let's assume that God exists, is omnipotent, is omniscient, and created the Universe.

This would mean that, before the Universe was created, God knew exactly what would happen at every moment in the coming Universe, and could tweak any moment to exist precisely as he desired it to.

Therefore, this must be the "best" Universe that could possibly be created, with respect to whatever it is that motivates God and defines what He would consider to be "best".

Interesting thing here is that morality, sin, temptation, ignorance of God (see Mayans, etc.) and rejection of God exist in this Universe. In fact, since every religion is a minority (with Christianity being the largest) it is a provable certainty that MOST humans believe in the wrong religion, regardless of what religion may be correct.

So, if the Christian God exists, His ideal Universe is one where most people reject Him and suffer eternal damnation. And that's to say nothing of the traditional "Why does evil exist?" argument. I find this situation to be quite interesting, as people historically have almost always followed the religion of their parents/region. The Koran in particular makes a very specific and logical argument as to why Christianity is wrong based on the First Commandment. This largely locks a young Muslim into his or her faith, even if that person is introduced to Christianity later in life. Thought of in this way, it's very hard to believe in the Christian God of Majority Damnation or any of the other less popular Gods.

Ah, but if God holds people responsible for their choices, then you could only end up in hell if you rejected Jesus Christ, or chose evil in spite of having other choices available, if you are somewhere where you have never heard of Christ.

Romans 2
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

If someone really wants truth, and wants to live right, but has never heard of Christ, what does he do? This doesn't apply to most people in the Western world, but what about some dude off in the jungles of Borneo?

God can't hold someone responsible for a choice, if they never made a choice. So, a choice must be available. If someone did the best he could, having never heard of Christ, then "their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another".

You can't be held accountable for something you have never heard, logically. You can't be given an F on a test you have never written. We are held accountable according to what we had.

Luke 12
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

If I have a Bible, am a Christian, and know a lot about what it says, I am held accountable for all of that. But a guy who has never seen a Bible? He will be held accountable for what little he did know that was right or wrong. Will God hold him accountable to not drink blood, but, instead to drain the animal before he eats it? No. "not drinking blood" is one of the few dietary things (the other one being "don't eat something that you know has been sacrificed to an idol) that Christians are required to do. How could some guy in some jungle know that?

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and he is love. Everyone has a choice, and they are held accountable for whatever level of information they had that led to their choice.

God can get the gospel to anyone, anywhere, however, if they want as much of God as they can get.

Acts 8
26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
40But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

God, by an angel, directed Philip to go out on the road, where God knew a guy was wondering about something in the Old Testament, and Philip preached Jesus to him, he got saved, got baptized in water, then Philip was miraculously transported from Gaza to Azotus, about 38 miles. He vanished from where he was with the Ethiopian, and was found at Azotus.

If God can move someone 38 miles, he can move them 10,000 miles. Nothing is impossible. If someone really wants to know truth, God will get it to him, enough for him to make the next step. He did it by sending Philip to this Ethiopian, he can do it today. He didn't suddenly run out of miracle sauce the moment the Bible was written.

Everyone has choices between good and evil to make. And we are held accountable for whatever level of knowledge we have regarding good and evil, and by our conscience. Only God knows who is accountable for what, but all adults are accountable. All children are not. The age at which someone becomes a moral adult will vary from person to person. Some people might be so completely physically vegetative or brain-damaged they never even get to the point of reaching that stage before they die. Only God knows, but he judges rightly, every time.

Accuser

2011-10-17, 09:56 AM

Traak: I think you totally missed my point where the Christian God, if He exists, has created a Universe where most people go to Hell. And as I said, whether or not you go to Hell is determined largely by your place of birth. There's a built-in excuse for people who've never heard of Jesus, but people raised in a Muslim home will almost always keep that faith. Since God would know ahead of time that Ahbed would uphold his parents Muslim faith in the face of Christianity, God effectively planned for Ahbed to go to Hell before he was even born. The fact is that the vast majority of people who are born are going to Hell, according to the Bible. If that's the case, I doubt this is the "best" Universe, by which I deduce that the Christian God does not exist.

And isn't it a bit silly that, in this by-definition perfect Universe, so many people weren't given the privilege of the knowledge of the actual Creator? If God exists, isn't it cruel that He allowed so many millions to live their entire lives without the possibility of knowing that He exists? I mean, for the good, devout spirit-worshipers of America between the years 1500A.D.->????B.C. that'd be a big shock when they die: "Oh hey, turns out everything you ever believed was wrong. This big guy actually created the Universe and didn't get around to telling your continent about it (sorry)."

And that brings up another interesting possibility. Maintaining for the moment the assumption that Christianity is correct... Since millions of people never got to hear about Jesus (or monotheism) in their entire lives, it's proven that, if there is a God, He doesn't necessarily need to let an individual (or group of people) know about him on any specific time frame.

And since Americans lived for thousands of years with their own Creation myths which were largely supplanted by Christianity... isn't it possible that Christianity is just another Creation myth, waiting to be supplanted by a visitor from elsewhere who claims to know the true God?

What makes you think you know the truth any more than an Iroquois shaman did in the year 1300?

Quovatis

2011-10-17, 10:04 AM

The Old Testament rules were during a different age, as I have said.

First of all, the old testament rules on slavery, as I pointed out, says nothing about child workers in a Nike factory. It's clearly talking about taking innocent people from surrounding countries by force, and turning them into slaves. There is no choice involved.

So god's rules have a time limit. I see. So how does one determine what the time limit is? Since you have repeatedly quoted from the old testiment, obviously you still accept some of those rules. And as others have pointed out, Jesus supposedly said that all the old rules were unchanged, so don't give me that excuse. If god was really as moral and great as he is supposed to be, he should never have said slavery was ok. So again, you and pretty much every religious person cherry-picks the stuff they like from their holy book and ignores the rest.

A far better explanation is that the bible was written by bronze-age males (as obvious in treatment of females in the bible) with bronze-age laws. Because if it really were written (or inspired) by god, it's pretty clear god lacks morals. It would be far more impressive if god had laid out modern laws that we have today (no slavery, women's rights, etc), but then the religion would have never grown because nobody would want to live like that in the bronze age. They wrote what they had to so that their cult would grow, simple as that. There is no evidence for any divine inspiration. Quite the contrary.

Traak

2011-10-17, 10:23 AM

Whenever this has happened it has usually been as a result of your incomprehension...

You keep ignoring what I'm saying so you can restate what you say over and over, and I provided the answer.

You say God is omnipotent, so therefore you shouldn't ever have any negative consequences, everything should be wonderful, he should be there to do everything for everyone to prevent them from ever having any negative consequence, or ever doing something wrong.

But, that isn't free will. That is the point you keep ignoring. You make choices. God gave you that power. He will not rescind it. Do you understand that? God is not lacking in love because he allowed you to leave the house with a tie that clashes with your shoes. He is not lacking in love or power because he allows people to make choices.

Do you understand? Free will is the greatest gift he could give. The consequences of decisions being ours and ours alone is something even the angels had, how much more man, created in his image.

Even dogs have free will. If a dog bites a cat, you use that as evidence that God either doesn't care or can't prevent it? How about if a flea bites a dog? How about if an amoeba devours a paramecium? At what level do you quit saying "See! That is proof God is not omnipotent, or uncaring"?

But, the fundamental problem that you are overlooking is that the state of this planet is due to the choices made by the men on it. You buying Nike shoes, did you do that so other people could work in sweatshops? Yet you buy stuff made in oppressive countries. Is it your choice to oppress workers and make them work in bad conditions? No. You just buy shoes. Somewhere along the line, however, someone is responsible for the conditions workers work in, and it is not God, it is other men.

God offered prevention of any evil ever happening on this planet:

Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam had the Tree of Life. He could have eaten of that. But noooooo, he had to eat of the one tree that God said he couldn't eat. If he would have eaten from the tree of Life, he would have had no desire for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and he would have lived forever. After he sinned, it was too late to make that choice, and an everlasting sinful man was not something this world needed. We don't need someone living forever who is worse than Hitler, Stalin, Dalmer, and whoever else you care to name, all rolled into one.

Genesis 3
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever...
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

How much more obvious could God make it? You can eat from any tree here except this one. Instead of the tree of life, Adam chose to rebel against God and disobey. And this world, since then, is a result of that.

God giving people a choice doesn't make God evil. Even when he knows that you will make bad choices, he still lets you make them.

By giving man free will, he made available good and bad choices. Bad choices by a large enough group of people can lead to natural or man-made annihilation, because evil attracts disaster, sin produces death.

When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, it was due to the choices of the adults inhabiting those cities. They drew down evil on themselves, and the children, who they were responsible to protect, were destroyed along with them. However, the children went to heaven, and many of the adults went to hell, but everyone died.

So, what are labeled "acts of God" or natural disasters, are not a result of God not caring or not being able to prevent them. You are responsible to hear from God, why were you there? Why didn't you flee? Many people on 9/11 somehow were late, didn't make it to work, were warned by God to not go to work that day. God is speaking all the time. Not everyone is listening.

This statement implies that using free will we can simply wish away things like natural disaster, which is of course wrong.

I never said you could wish away anything. I never implied we could wish away anything, so please do not construct lies and credit me with them. It deflates your arguments.

If you are trying to say God cant be blamed for the free will of man then I have said before and i will say again i agree.

[QUOTE=MadPenguin;600091]For example, I said if God is omnipotent, there need not be any natural disasters.

This omnipotent God gave Adam the answer before there was ever a problem. Adam, rejecting the answer, rained death on all who would follow him.

If God is benevolent, he doesnt want there to be any natural disasters because as we discussed, natural disasters are excess misery that isnt needed.So it follows logically that God cant be both omnipotent and benevolent.

No, it does not logically follow. God gave Adam the answer in advance. He could have lived forever, prevented the flood, prevented Sodom and Gomorrah, prevented disease, prevented every single negative thing, ever. God gave man authority over this world. Having given him this authority, man, not God, now had responsibility for what goes on here.

In his benevolence, the omniscient, omnipotent God gave the answer in advance, put Adam in the garden with the tree that would give everlasting life, and Adam rejected that.

Again, i am NOT blaming God for them, i am saying if he is real, he cannot be both of these things.

I see that. What I am saying is, that due to the fact that he delegates authority, it does not diminish any of his qualities when people make bad choices. Where there is no ability to choose, there is not free will. You say that anybody ever being ABLE to fail is God's fault, or God's inability. The Bible does not support that.

Another interesting line of thought is that God puts the love/adoration/worship of himself above things like human well being, (since if we dont do these things he sends us to an eternity of conscious torment in fire [suposedly]) but he is all-loving towards us. Does that make him something stronger than "all-vain" or "all-narcissistic", either way, he has a serious ego.

If God is love, and God commands us to love him foremost, then it is because the best results in life come from loving God first and foremost. Adam, amazingly, living in the perfect world, with the perfect woman, still rejected God, and the sin, sickness, poverty, death, and darkness this world has been in ever since proves how badly that works. Putting God first works. Putting him anywhere else other than first place doesn't. God doesn't prescribe this because he has an ego problem, he prescribes it because it works.

Do you have an ego problem if you want your wife to only sleep with you, and not every single person in the entire city, starting with intravenous drug users? Is it because your ego is so titanic, so colossal, that you don't want that for her? Could it be that there are benefits that accrue from her not banging every guy in sight? Benefits that you willingly provide?

If you work in a prison, in the section reserved for child molesters, are you being an egomaniac if you don't want to bring your son there, and let him wander around the cell block? Are you being a mean-spirited authoritarian dictator because you know he is in danger, and he doesn't?

If you have a young daughter, are you being an egomaniacal pervert if you tell her not to go around hugging any and all strangers, everywhere? Because you DARE to think it is better for her to hug you than random guys who might be hanging around her playground? Is it because your ego is so insatiable that you instruct your little girl not to do that? Are you depriving her of fun when you tell her not to get into cars with strangers? No, you are somewhere that she is supposed to get love, attention, and affection. It is good for her to be loved and hugged by her dad. It can be fatal to go to others for that.

If you have a young boy, and you give him something nice, such as, oh, let's say, eternal life in heaven, and he turns around and curses you, and murders your other son, would you consider that to be appropriate? Something you should shower with rewards? How do you reward evil? With punishment. But, the punishment is self-chosen. God makes it available, but doesn't force you to sin. He also doesn't force you to do good.

God tells us stuff for our own good. Satan is in this world, and he is trying to impoverish, infect, and kill you. God's ways work. That's why he touts them.

However, where do you go, if you refuse all love, all light, all blessing, and all good? Hell. Then, after the judgment, the lake of fire. Because to reject God is to reject all that is good, light, fun, happy, and beautiful. So where can God put you? In heaven, where you would be BURDENED with the horror of being surrounded by people like me who love God? In heaven? Where you would have the unspeakable degradation of being in the presence of the God who loves you? Since God's presence fills heaven, and you don't want God, and God gives you free will, he can't force you to be in heaven.

He can't violate your will. You can reject him, but since everything about him is good and loving, if you reject him, you reject all in life that is good and loving, and having done that, you have to go, due to your own choice, to a place that is absent of all love, all goodness, all peace, all safety, and all that is good in any way whatsoever.

Anything God tells us is for our good, not his. You don't tell your kids to not drink poison for your good. You don't keep them from playing with venomous snakes to deprive them of fun. God knows what works. His way works, so he tells us to do things his way, but he allows us to reject what is good.

And, to whoever was asking about multiple posts, it is FAR faster to respond to each person with a quote response, than it is to go through all the work it takes to cram responses to multiple people into one post.

An all-powerful loving God gave free choice. Since this life is temporary, and eternity comes after, the relative femtoseconds we spend in this world that is so poisoned by sinners can't compare to the glories awaiting us for eternity. We wade through this sin-blackened world for a while, but it will be over soon enough, and sinners will be as far away from God and all his effects as they can get, and we will be close, every man according to his choices.

As a non-Christian, this world is of ultimate importance, since your entire life is measured in decades, in your view. To the Christian, the miseries we tolerate in this life are nothing compared to the glories of the next life. One day, sinners will no longer be, and will largely or entirely be forgotten. Their kind will be extinct for eternity, the very universe they have darkened with evil will be destroyed in fire, and a new heavens and Earth will take their place. And eternity is really what life is all about, not the temporary pleasures available here, especially the pleasures that have sin as their entrance fee.

So, there is a difference of perspective. To the Christian, the only evil that is permanent is the evil that you permanently choose. Evil inflicted by others just does not last. A baby who is aborted goes to heaven. The 8.99999 months it was alive in the Earth, ending in a violent murder, are not the focus, especially as the millenia in heaven go by. Yeah, it's bad, it was murder, it was painful, but it is over. And eternity never ends.

Similarly, for the worshiper of abortion, they make their money, or get to go keep being a hooker without the income stream being interrupted by a child, or whatever, and they reject God, and then they get to spend eternity with their god, who is Satan, if they do not repent.

This life is exceedingly temporary, and whatever happens or is done to you is also temporary. No one can force you to reject God. Neither can anyone force you to accept him. The choice is yours, and God is not to blame because you have that choice, and the results, either individual or as a society, that accrue therefrom.

Firefly

2011-10-17, 10:49 AM

I said in China, slavery, for the most part does not exist, so baby girls are killed instead of being sold as slaves.
I know what the fuck you said. You're prevaricating because you're getting your ass kicked in an argument, because I can't believe you're ignorant enough to fail at reading comprehension. I was replying to your false assertion that instead of enslaving girls they kill them. I never said anything about slavery as it pertains to China. I was done with slavery the moment I moved on to your quote about China. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT SLAVERY IN CHINA. If *YOU* interpreted it that way, that is entirely YOUR fault.

THE PRACTICE OF KILLING BABIES IN CHINA IS DYING OUT. There. Can you fucking understand THAT? Now go back and read what I said and try to keep that all-caps sentence in mind.

Crator

2011-10-17, 11:12 AM

All this stuff being presented from the bible, is just Man coming up with ways to reconcile the lack of knowledge to comprehend how the world really works. We know a lot more today.

Quovatis

2011-10-17, 11:47 AM

Chill Firefly. I share your frustration with the guy, but no need for such harsh language. Lets keep things civil here.

MadPenguin

2011-10-17, 01:12 PM

You say God is omnipotent, so therefore you shouldn't ever have any negative consequences

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH

When i read this one of my housemates had to come and check i was alright because i couldnt contain my cry of fustration. I NEVER said an omnipotent God means no negative consequences, where are you getting this from? Give me the quote that made you think i even implied this. I specifically said this isnt the case. Hopefully you understand things better the 4th time...

So, what are labeled "acts of God" or natural disasters, are not a result of God not caring or not being able to prevent them. You are responsible to hear from God, why were you there? Why didn't you flee? Many people on 9/11 somehow were late, didn't make it to work, were warned by God to not go to work that day. God is speaking all the time. Not everyone is listening.

If it were true that God spoke to the righteous and told them not to go, then there would be NO devout christians ever die from natural disasters or terrorism. Are you claiming this is the case? Because i can show you its not. God does not speak to people. If you are hearing voices in your head, i'd get yourself checked out. Because im telling you, its not God.

I never said you could wish away anything. I never implied we could wish away anything, so please do not construct lies and credit me with them. It deflates your arguments.

My mistake, i thought when you said

you willfully forget that it is free will that decides how this world is now

you were saying we can effect all current events with free will and you werent so i apologise. It actually turns out you were implying something 100 times more crazy. As you make clear further down in your post. You were implying that because of one mans misuse of free will, thats when natural disasters started.

All of your arguments are based on things that have absolutely NO basis in reality. I am sorry, but you are severly deluded. We KNOW natural disasters were around before humans were. We KNOW the world is a little under 14 billion years old. Adam and Eve were NOT real. A fact the vast majority of Christians accept, apparently not you. Im curious, did you decide these were truths because you went out, examined the evidence and came to these conclusions, or because you were told this was true and you just accepted it?

Because to reject God is to reject all that is good, light, fun, happy, and beautiful

Here come the mightily "humble" christians telling us they are better than us and live better lives because of their acceptance of God. This statement implies by rejecting God we reject all fun, so an atheist cannot have fun? A very easily disprovable statement, i had fun today when talking with some mates. Your hypothesis is wrong. Shocker.

Do you have an ego problem if you want your wife to only sleep with you, and not every single person in the entire city, starting with intravenous drug users? Is it because your ego is so titanic, so colossal, that you don't want that for her? Could it be that there are benefits that accrue from her not banging every guy in sight? Benefits that you willingly provide?

If when she cheated on you, you preceeded to skinning her alive then raping her to death for example, it becomes obvious you dont really love them because i dont know about you, but i wouldnt even imagine doing this to someone i love. It also becomes apparent at this point you are a psycho, but if you can only get yourself called a God, these kinds of actions mean you are benevolent. And if you think that fate sounds bad, hell will be infinitely worse for an infinite amount of time.

Firefly

2011-10-17, 01:17 PM

MadPenguin: this guy sees what he wants to see, makes shit up out of nowhere, and puts words in everyone's mouth, then ignores everything else. You can't argue with someone like that. It's like trying to beat it into someone the sky is blue. I'm done.

Quovatis

2011-10-17, 01:25 PM

We KNOW the world is a little under 14 billion years old.

I'm sure you made an honest mistake, but the universe is about 14.5 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Sirisian

2011-10-17, 01:26 PM

You say God is omnipotent, so therefore you shouldn't ever have any negative consequences, everything should be wonderful, he should be there to do everything for everyone to prevent them from ever having any negative consequence, or ever doing something wrong.
This shows a lack of understanding in free will. The God you speak of knows the end to everything. The catch is that even if he gave humans free will he did it knowing the final outcome of any action since he set everything in motion. Unless you presume he created a universe he can't predict then everything that happens is because he designed it that way. Thus, why some people believe in fate. This is also why there's a huge philosophical paradox between determinism and free-will that has no logical solution.

As a non-Christian, this world is of ultimate importance, since your entire life is measured in decades, in your view. To the Christian, the miseries we tolerate in this life are nothing compared to the glories of the next life.
As a non-Christian views like that are ignorant and destructive. When you preach such ideas it leads the weak minded to waste their only real time hoping for more time later. The fact is there is no more time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1XGTrrZjlI#t=58s). (Good interview that gives some helpful perspective to Christians). As any non-theist will tell you once you're done here there's nothing left.

MadPenguin

2011-10-17, 02:46 PM

I'm sure you made an honest mistake, but the universe is about 14.5 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Sorry yeah, i meant the universe when i said world, but i was under the impression its about 13.75 billion years old :)

Effective

2011-10-17, 06:56 PM

You might as well give up trying to point out the numerous flaws in traak's argument, he's become some brainwashed that no amount of critical thinking are ever going to be able to break through his protective shell of denial.

The vast majority of us here, know the existence of a god is highly improbable, and if he did exist, we certainly wouldn't worship him just because he does exist.

I can spend all day pointing out evidence for

Evolution
The Big Bang
Carbon dating not being the preferred method for dating the age of the earth
The God Gap
The US not being a christian nation
The hypocrisy in the bible and the people who claim to adhere to it's principles.

Nothing will be able to change the mind of a religious bigot who's so thoroughly convinced we are all going to hell.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

CutterJohn

2011-10-17, 09:38 PM

Geist

2011-10-18, 09:47 PM

I prefer..

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

But the best is..

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

-Douglas Adams

I agree completely with the first quote and love the second. Douglas Adams was a genius.

Some thing I wanted to point out was knowing all things and allowing mankind to make bad choices is not an indication of a malevolent god, if anything, be is more just than imaginable. What would be the point our existence if we were mere automatons doing good because there Is no such thing as evil. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm glad I have the ability to make my own choices.

This is not to say I believe one way or another, but the existence of evil does not clearly suggest the intentions of an omnipotent being. Not that we could understand a god-like being's intentions, their mental facilities most likely being far greater than ours.

CutterJohn

2011-10-18, 11:05 PM

This is not to say I believe one way or another, but the existence of evil does not clearly suggest the intentions of an omnipotent being.

It does speak of its character though. If there is a singular all powerful deity, and it made things they way they are, it is either malevolent, inept, or simply indifferent. None are the mark of a deity I would want to place my faith in.

Traak

2011-10-19, 01:31 AM

It does speak of its character though. If there is a singular all powerful deity, and it made things they way they are, it is either malevolent, inept, or simply indifferent. None are the mark of a deity I would want to place my faith in.

But, God didn't make things the way they are. He gave the first two humans a perfect world inhabited by perfect people. He gave them a tree of life whereby they could be like God, and live forever also. He told them they could eat off of that, and not eat off the one tree in the universe that he told them not to.

And they chose to rebel. Just like anyone who rejects God. And, just like people everywhere and all through time, neither one of them would take responsibility for it. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed Satan.

In fact, what Adam said sounds a lot like what a lot of you are saying:

Genesis 3
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

It's YOUR fault, God! You are obviously at fault, because I didn't do the right thing, and I am suffering for it! This proves that God can't be real!

However, instead of finding fabulously creative reasons for blaming God for everything, or claiming he can't exist, because he doesn't bow down to your set of parameters that you think should define him, you can just accept Jesus as your savior, and step over into the family of God. If he is real, he will save you. If he isn't, then you haven't lost anything, so you are no further behind. :D

Sirisian

2011-10-19, 02:20 AM

But, God didn't make things the way they are. He gave the first two humans a perfect world inhabited by perfect people. He gave them a tree of life whereby they could be like God, and live forever also. He told them they could eat off of that, and not eat off the one tree in the universe that he told them not to.
Correction:
But, God created things the way they are. He created the first two humans a perfect world inhabited by perfect people. He created a tree of life whereby they could be like God, and live forever also. He told them they could eat off of that, and not eat off the one tree in the universe that he told them not to.
He also created eve (which somehow required a rib from Adam which seems legit. I mean he made everything else from apparently nothing). She didn't sway from his laws until he created an evil creature. Note eve at this point really didn't know evil it would seem. So when told by god that she can eat an apple, he wanted her to eat it. That's extremely clear from the biblical writing. How you missed this fact that he wanted a creature to play with that was of his own intellect is beyond me.

That and the writing is a bit sexist I think if you read into as much as some extremists.

you can just accept Jesus as your savior, and step over into the family of God. If he is real, he will save you. If he isn't, then you haven't lost anything, so you are no further behind. :D
Accept the flying spaghetti monster as your one true deity and you will be set free. He touches everyone everyday with his noddley appendages guiding our lives. You're blind for not seeing this; however, he forgives you and won't lead you astray even if you don't believe.

Traak

2011-10-19, 03:48 AM

She didn't sway from his laws until he created an evil creature.

But, he didn't create an evil creature. Satan wasn't created evil, he was created as Lucifer, and was also perfect. He sinned, became Satan, and later tempted Adam and Eve, and they sinned.

MadPenguin

2011-10-19, 05:16 AM

you can just accept Jesus as your savior, and step over into the family of God. If he is real, he will save you. If he isn't, then you haven't lost anything, so you are no further behind.

This argument is often called Pascals Wager and is a terrible one. Not only because it implies God is incredibly gullible and wont realise you only believed in him out of selfish reasons to get into heaven. But its based on an unknowable assumption, namely that God is just.

For every God you create who punishes the non believers and rewards the devout, i can make one up (who is just as likely to exist) who has a sort of sick sense of humor who punishes the devout and rewards the non believers. So when we take pascals wager a step further, lets consider the possibilites.

God Exists and is just - the devout "win"
God Exists and isnt just - the non believers "win"
(notice these 2 cancel each other out, we are all evens so far.
God does not exist - clearly the non believers are the "winners" since they havent wasted so much of the little time they have worshipping someone who doesnt exist.

So contrary to what many theists tell you, its actually the more logical decision to be an atheist and not waste your time. I wouldn't actually promote this as a way to convince people of Gods non existence, im just saying dont let the theists get away with this nonsense :)

Also Traak, if you want to base an argument on something as crazy as the Adam and Eve story, you first have to convince us it is a true story or your arguments will just get met with ill-concealed laughter, no one is taking what you just said seriously. For example, if i made an argument now that only holds true if Elvis Presley were still alive, no one takes my argument seriously because thats a ludicrous claim with no supporting reason or evidence.

Traak

2011-10-19, 07:08 AM

Not only because it implies God is incredibly gullible and wont realise you only believed in him out of selfish reasons to get into heaven.

God made salvation available to anyone, not just people who have a set of motives that mere men may regard as worthy.

If we had to be perfect, or even anywhere near it before being acceptable to Jesus Christ, who could be saved?

People are stating what they believe, here, and I'm stating what I believe. Convincing? That is God's job, not mine. I state what I believe. Whether anyone is convinced or not is not in my purview.

MadPenguin

2011-10-19, 08:06 AM

God made salvation available to anyone, not just people who have a set of motives that mere men may regard as worthy.

If we had to be perfect, or even anywhere near it before being acceptable to Jesus Christ, who could be saved?

I laughed so hard at this. I think i have finally gotten used to you just ignoring the main points i put forward and going after my side points of little relevance.

People are stating what they believe, here, and I'm stating what I believe. Convincing? That is God's job, not mine. I state what I believe. Whether anyone is convinced or not is not in my purview.

For sure, people are just stating their beliefs. And if someone came on this post and stated their belief that unicorns and faires are real, they would recieve just as much riducule as you are recieving. In fact the funny thing is they would recieve less because while what they are saying isnt supported by science or reason, it at least doesnt go against it. Whereas a lot of the points you make go against both.

Traak

2011-10-19, 08:13 AM

Jesus still loves you. He came to the Earth, lived, did miracles, was crucified, went to hell, paid the price for the sin of mankind, and rose again from the dead. He accepts any who come to him. :D

MadPenguin

2011-10-19, 08:24 AM

Jesus still loves you. He came to the Earth, lived, did miracles, was crucified, went to hell, paid the price for the sin of mankind, and rose again from the dead. He accepts any who come to him.

I refuse to even have a shred of respect for, let alone worship and love, a being who punishes with eternal hellfire those who refuse to accept his ultimate authority, this is the ultimate in dictatorship. What can i say, im a man of principles

If a man went round torturing to death people who wouldnt praise him as their master, even someone like you can see this man is evil. But when religion enters the equation, so many people are blinded and cant see the wrong doing there.

Traak

2011-10-19, 08:35 AM

MadPenguin

2011-10-19, 09:18 AM

It's like railing against a guy who owns a club. The club is members only. He is standing at the door handing out free membership cards. And people are saying "That is unfair! He should let us in without a membership card!" But, anyone can have a card. They're free.

But people stand outside on the sidewalk and instead choose to curse him for not letting them in without a membership card. He isn't responsible for what happens to you if you choose to stay outside, you are.

No, that is a terrible analogy. Let me give you one closer to the Christian belief.

A guy owns a club. He stands outside his club telling everyone that they should get in the club, for anyone left outside this club come nightfall is going to be put on the rack and tortured until they die. There is however, a cost to get in the club; you have to tell this guy how awesome he is, get on your knees and tell him you love him more than you love your own family, and actually mean it, because little do you know, he can actually tell whether you mean it or not. You also have to make sacrifices to appease this man in order to get in.

Unfortunately for everyone outside the club, he provides absolutely no reason to believe this, you are just expected to accept that what this random guy is saying is true. Consider that you are walking along a street and someone tells you this, you cant seriously be telling me that you would believe him and accept the terms and conditions of entering his club. You wouldn't enter like everyone else and come nightfall, you would be tortured to death. And it turns out the guy who owns the club loves you all very much. Its absolute BS.

The christian God, should he exist, hasnt given any rationally minded person a hope in hell of attaining paradise, since no rational person could believe this jibberish.

Traak

2011-10-19, 09:22 AM

I'm sorry you believe God is that bad.

Quovatis

2011-10-19, 09:45 AM

A great and pretty accurate analogy MadPenguin. And Traak, that's not just what he believes, the bible pretty much says all that too. You just ignore all the bits that you don't like.

Crator

2011-10-19, 09:49 AM

I'm sorry you believe God is that bad.

LOL, his belief in God is not that bad, it's non-existent. :P

MadPenguin

2011-10-19, 10:47 AM

Dont be sorry for me, i have the company of science and reason on my side. Were I you, I would start looking for what I have on my side and re-evaluate which stance is more likely to be correct, I guarantee you losing ones religion changes one not at all, that coming from first hand experience.

Effective

2011-10-19, 04:55 PM

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/1135238941_tVKGy-L.jpg

Quovatis

2011-10-21, 05:37 PM

Rapture, take 2, was a bust yet again today. +1 to science.

You might laugh the guy off as a nutjob, but sadly many "mainstream" religious followers believe equally stupid nonsense disproved by science.

Traak

2011-10-22, 01:34 AM

It's the same old thing, always a new wrapper: "I don't want God, here are my reasons."

Or, "I love God, here are mine."

:D

Sirisian

2011-10-22, 03:11 AM

It's the same old thing, always a new wrapper: "I don't want God, here are my reasons."

Or, "I love God, here are mine."

:D
It's the same old thing, always a new wrapper: "I don't believe in deities, here are my reasons."

Or, "I want a God, here are mine."

:D
http://assaultwars.com/pictures/iseewhatyoudidthere.png

CutterJohn

2011-10-22, 03:24 AM

It's the same old thing, always a new wrapper: "I don't want God, here are my reasons."

Or, "I love God, here are mine."

:D

Which would all be perfectly fine if people from group B didn't try to push their beliefs onto group A with legislation.

Everyone thinks murder is bad and should be against the law. But what groups are against gay marriage? I think we all know that. Why can't I buy beer on sunday in some states? Why is prostitution illegal, gambling illegal, drugs illegal? In some parts of the world women can't show their faces or heads. Here they just can't show their chest. Different body part, same religious nonsense.

TRex

2011-10-22, 04:55 AM

For me, its all down to faith and what you believe. It's not an arguement between science v religion.

Look at this weeks news : Colonel Gedaffi is dead , yet some people in Libya are still uncertain of this fact unless they actually see his dead body . That just goes to all the misinformation and propoganda they have been fed for the last 30+ years.

I believe that there is a country called Japan , I've never been there . I've bought items with 'Made in Japan' on them . I can see the world map and its stuck there just to the right of another imaginary country called China. I go on faith that all this information about Japan is true based upon what other sentient beings around me that I can see believe in it also. I also presume that I'm not part of some Matrix and that these people are real.

Time-warp back a few thousand years to the middle east . Some guy tries to explain that hes just seen a burning bush which was talking to him and said he should bring his son back up the hill and kill his son to honour the burning bush . In a modern context this guy would belong in the 'One flew over the cuckoos nest' academy and probably be in there before his feet touched the ground.
Jump a couple of thousand years forward in same area, and a new guy turns up with some new teachings .Ironically this guy ends up at the behest of the burning bush bregade upon a wooden cross . This guy , according to his pals in their writings , once went into a temple and had a hissy fit throwing tables over etc and saying they should not worship false idols . He stated that wherever you worship , be it your home or whatever , is where worship belongs.

Manipulate and hand pick (and maybe add a few of your own along the way ie 'adjust' the writings as you go ) these writings, ensure that only your own mates are allowed to read the text and talk about it for the next 1800 years. Take any property and dwellings as you see fit 'In the Name of' , tax everyone on your confiscated land , evict anyone who dosen't comply and burn anyone else who even attempts to join your club . Even appoint your own ready-made 'God on earth' and stick him in a palace in which you amass all the wealth your corporation is profiting from. Countries don't adhere your your teachings ? Or a puppet king needs to fight his neighbour but lacks the funds ? Who you gonna call? Thats right 'Faithbusters' , at the right price and compliance to your new 'bank manager'.

Bring time forward to 21st century , people have a new religion , it has a trendy new and catchy name 'Capitalism' , along with it comes it's new preacher 'democracy' . People don't have to be burned at the stake for not paying their rent to the old burning bush bregade. It's still essentially all an illusion to the common man , but at least he's allowed to think that the utopia fed to him on high is attainable. The relative few with all the wealth use innovation and invention to drive the populace to buy their new product .It's no longer some mystical being they can't see or sceptical even exists , it's an i-Pod that they can hold in their very own hands.

Sure, we still see evidence of the burning bush bregade rear its head . In Rome in first few centuries AD it was the Christian 'terrorists' , In the Americas it was the local insurgency 'terrorists' annoying the British Colonial government (in the name of democracy) , and now we have the muslim extremist 'terrorist' rearing its ugly head in time-honoured fashion.

The line of faith is even more blurry , you sell weapons and ammunition secretly to the faithfull to make a profit , then go to war when one of these nutjobs uses their guns towards you , and the populace pays for both , double wammy profit.

Science allows people to understand why they they are dying , how to live to an increasing age in pursuit of eternal life :who needs a 2nd life in heaven when they can live forever here? Wealth tends to be accumulating over time , invested into property and belongings , and therefore on the whole the occupation of the middle aged. The young are there to feed these bloated sponges when they get older, and to be sent off to have their insides blown out in a war somewhere when elswhere in the world disagrees with their philosophies, or more likely ,threatens their growing ability to soak up more wealth and expand their balance sheets.

Religion does the same thing , it preys on the weak minded to do the behest of those 'In the Know' . It's just an out dated philosophy superceded by more 'logical' reasoning. As soon as you sign up to a particular 'branch' of religion , your faith becomes bound by the teaching of men , and loses sight of whether there is a god or ultimate being in the first place. You sold out! it's a safer bet to be part of a collective throng , and each reinforces each others idea that they are part of the winning and therefore correct phenomea. But, if it gives you peace of mind and comfort thats a good thing . If it allows those that preach to you the means to tax you whether voluntary or involuntary , then it's no different to all the other misgivings of religion in the past, or the pursuit of profit by modern corporations and their political arms in the name of the new religion money now.

As for me , I do sort of believe in a God , not this religious mumbo jumbo drivel drip fed over time. I even believe that there probably was some guys called Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed , Buddha and so on that had a real connection with the real power and reasoning within the Universe , and tried to make a difference by showing us the way. It's just that , as usual , Man fucks up time and time again and renders everything down to power struggle and control . Acqusition of land and wealth and influence.
Maybe in time we will have the next installment or deity beamed down to us from on high or interstellar flying saucer . Chances are we will probably just shoot them out of the sky with early warning system before they even enter out atmosphere. Or they will be on the next version of X factor , or thrown into the Big brother house.

MadPenguin

2011-10-22, 05:47 AM

For me, its all down to faith and what you believe

The problem is despite religious teachings, faith is not a virtue:

I believe that there is a country called Japan , I've never been there . I've bought items with 'Made in Japan' on them . I can see the world map and its stuck there just to the right of another imaginary country called China. I go on faith that all this information about Japan is true based upon what other sentient beings around me that I can see believe in it also.

There are huge differences between this and a belief in God, primarily evidence and probability. This is the line that seperates science from religion.
You cant be 100% sure the Earth orbits the Sun. That doesnt mean you have to take in on faith. We have extremely good reasons to believe the Earth goes round the sun. We have extremely good reasons to believe Japan exists, without ever going there. The same cannot be said of God/Relgion.

Time-warp back a few thousand years to the middle east . Some guy tries to explain that hes just seen a burning bush which was talking to him and said he should bring his son back up the hill and kill his son to honour the burning bush . In a modern context this guy would belong in the 'One flew over the cuckoos nest' academy and probably be in there before his feet touched the ground.

The problem with the claim of a burning bush talking to you is it defies the laws of the universe. A bush cannot speak. Fact. I already used the following paragraph so i apologize to those who have already read it but i cba coming up with a new one.
If you are meeting a friend and he tells you he walked to meet you, he could be lying, but you dont really question him on it, since not only is it a very plausible answer to the question of how he got there, but even if he lied and actually took the bus, who cares? If your friend instead claims he flew without the aid of technology, then walked across water, then teleported the rest of the way, you immediately become dubious about this claim, because it goes against the laws of the universe.

Religion does the same thing , it preys on the weak minded to do the behest of those 'In the Know'

In the case of science, if by weak minded you mean those who dont understand it, then whats science says to the ignorant is you should do x,y,z. And here are the reasons why. That last scentence is the difference here between science and religion, religion says something and just expects blind obedience. With science you can test it claims and show they are valid. In other words, science gets results.

I apologize by the way if i misinterpreted what you were saying, im probably just being a moron again but i had no idea what the main point you were trying to convey was :)

Quovatis

2011-10-22, 09:58 AM

It's the same old thing, always a new wrapper: "I don't want God, here are my reasons."

Or, "I love God, here are mine."

It's not that I don't "want" god, it's that there are no reasons to believe a god exists. You act like those who don't believe do so because they reject what god has to offer. That's not true. They simply don't believe god exists in the first place because there is no evidence. Do you not "want" Thor, Zeus, or leprechauns, or do you simply believe they don't exist?

Firefly

2011-10-22, 12:32 PM

Do you not "want" Thor, Zeus, or leprechauns, or do you simply believe they don't exist?
Thor exists. Just watch "Adventures in Babysitting".

Ohhhh, Elizabeth Shue... SOOOO HOT. WANT TO TOUCH THE HINEY. AROOOO!

TRex

2011-10-22, 02:32 PM

I apologize by the way if i misinterpreted what you were saying, im probably just being a moron again but i had no idea what the main point you were trying to convey was :)

The point i was making wasn't to question science or faith (ie belief in a god)but to explain that as soon as you mix a vested interest or control into the equation ,it's hard to take any of it with more than a pinch of salt.
Science explains more by having a realistic and quantifiable result or evidence to prove its theories. Japan does exist , theres maps showing its exact position in the world , I can buy products from there , I've met japanese people.

God, on the other hand , may possibly exist or existed. But this is writings from people a few thousand years ago that also thought the world was flat , the sun revolved around the earth and having the common cold meant you had been possessed by the devil and should be stoned to death. If you could write , and weren't part of the religious 'club' , you were guilty of witchcraft.

What if , 4-5000 BC , a group of aliens landed on the earth in their spaceships , talked to a few of the local tribe leaders , showed them how to make basic farming tools and weapons . The brighter ones showed them how to use the stars for navigation and basic arithmatic . And they were offered the leaders daughters as tribute. The progeny of those daughters become kings , the tribal leaders become holy servants to the 'gods' with divine authority . They make pyramids and burial grounds or chambers to mimic the way the visitors left after getting in their cryo chambers for their return interstellar space journey home.The rest is history , influenced over time by those wanting to maintain control.

The last paragraph to me is just as, if not more so , believable than the burning bush bregade we've been fed. At least it has some logic to it. Just like maybe when the first Europeans landed on American soil and shot the natives with their musket rifles, while wearing body armour and arriving upon giant 'spaceships' that floated on the great sea from 'heaven'.

I also have to think, that, just on the off-chance that maybe these religious nuts are correct , then if there is a god then by their own terms there must be a devil and hell. If thats the case , do I really want to wear white forever , be a mindless thoughtless zombie singing kumbyah for the rest of eternity eating nothing but Ambrosia creamed rice . Or hang out where its a bit warm all the time , and get drunk and have endless orgies , free speech and a chance to go topside and stir things up for a laugh every now and then. Difficult decision.

Malorn

2012-03-19, 01:04 AM

Meh.

Malorn

2012-03-19, 01:04 AM

Meh.

Vash02

2012-03-19, 02:30 AM

Interesting, thread wasn't showing up, I bumped it and now it appears.

Hamma/Gryphon might want to look at this issue...

I think the forum has a setting that "dissapears" old threads from your view.

Its the thread cut off option in your control panel. The default setting is the forum default but you can change it show all threads.

Malorn

2012-03-19, 02:55 AM

Meh.

Hamma

2012-03-19, 09:16 AM

Yea it was prob just a sorting issue :)

Ait'al

2012-03-31, 02:56 AM

Didn't read but posting from the title and first post a bit.

"I didn't know it was a contest."

Technically the colloquial, modern, term science and religion are both sciences. Modern science definition(or how it is taken) is focused on the part of a thought or argument proccess focused on deduction. The religious spends a lot more times on other parts. But they are both ulitmately moving to deductive processes. "Science" is trying to get to minor details. Religion is looking at larger thing. In the truest sense you can't forget philosophy is a part of deduction, for instance. The thoughts of philosophy(and in this case religion) are the thoughts that must be argued past to deduce something properly in an argument. The removal of all other possibilities. So it is all part of a proper argument and necessary by definition. Any possible thought that can be thought must be argued past and proven wrong to prove you have deduced something correctly and removed all other possibility. It is a requirement for proper thought. it is all part of the process.

Crap nvm... 8p. I thought this was still in discussion.

Figment

2012-03-31, 04:42 AM

The difference between religion and science in throught process is inverse.

Deduction vs induction. Of course, induction can only take place once an initial set exists. (Typically based on primitive deduction due to lack of understanding and severe extrapolation on speculation). Did you for instance know that the bible classifies bats as birds, instead of mammals?

Deduction is continuously peering evidence and adjusting when needed to fit the evidence, while not concluding anything till there is a pretty solid argument and a verifiable and demonstratable case. That is where a scientific hypothesis moves to scientific theory, which is still open for revision and amendment when neccessary.

These theories are not open to subjective interpretation, but are very specifically defined. Subjectivity (difference in opinion) lies predominantly on the hypothesis side of things, but critique can still be uttered regarding laws if you can substantially back up your case and there's a good chance that if your model is objectively better (more accurate) in line with observations, that your model replaces the existing one.

Induction however, is going from an existing doctrine. Which is a set of believes and stances regarding the world. Observations do not alter these unless they are so overwhelming they cannot be ignored any longer. At which point the core of the set of believes is still attempted to be retained. More likely though, is that the observations are interpreted with the 100% validity of the doctrine in mind.

This makes religion not be very open to alternatives or critical on content: the content in the end has to remain 'intact', whether abstractly or literally (depends on subjective interpretation). Because it's been said by [arbitrary authority X] that it is such, therefore they are right. This authority is derived typically on character, rather than on argument or evidence. If spiritual leader Y says A, then A it is, because he is the representative of divinity on earth. Not because it has been verified or is in accordance with observations.

Another significant difference is that morality is imposed on people through religion, while science does not impose any morality. It just explains the process as best it can. Morality based on science is a social derivative.

What I find weird though, is that people think religion is a freedom, when a the outcome of their thought process is imposed on them by their doctrine. Rather than that they are encouraged to think for themselves, question existing theory (through verification) and come to new and innovative, insightful conclusions where possible.

The amount of trust someone puts in either thought process determines the amount of "faith" one requires to accept certain things. In science, trust is generated by peer evaluations and experimentation. Yes, frequently by others, but not always as you can do so yourself if you want to and have time for it. Thing is, acceptance by a majority of the scientific community in general means you have been able to convince people with completely different theories using evidence and catalogued it accordingly.

If I hear of a particular scientific theory, I'll check if observations are in accordance with it, at the very least on a global scale and if the rational seems sound. Geology is a pretty good example of this.

An example.

When you have induction theories on geology (for instance, young earth) and compare it to scientific theory, then the difference in level of argument and evidence to support the case, as well as experiments in favour of scientific theory, then it's completely overwhelming in favour of scientific theory on all three accounts. The induction is simply limited to amateuristic philosophy based on ancient texts, but completely lacking in evidence. It has to explain away massive observational incongrueties with shallow thought. It has to do without experiments to back it up.

In contrast, it is easy to do sedimentation experiments and the results of those never support things like World Flood theories. That makes these religiously induced theories very untrustworthy in comparison.

I also prefer to determine my own morality. Philosophers are great in helping setup that morality, but does that mean one should take their word on everything? Stoicism sounds great in theory with regards to politics on a national or global level (rationality above greed or not being able to do things that have to be done). In practice a stoic without emotions like love, empathy or even physical attraction would probably not make the world a better place to live in on an individual level.

However, that doesn't mean that other philosophies, including religions, have the correct interpretations when they do involve these emotions. Very often they can be very (too) judgmental based on raw emotions alone and lacking severely in rationality and backing up their claims.

Backing up your claims is the first thing you have to do in order to be trustworthy. Hence I will much sooner accept something argued scientifically. I will not have blind faith in it and once accepted never be able to rescind on it. However, you will need to built your own case first in order to convince either way.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-03-31, 08:18 AM

There's no debate between science and religion, any more than there is a 'debate' between science and astrologers. One is real. The other demonstrably isn't.

AnamNantom

2012-04-04, 01:21 AM

That's not a conflict.

Some scientists see the marvels of the universe and the complexity and reason that it is highly improbable that it is purely due to chance. Thus what they observe from science reinforces their faith.

I would also state that a lot of the actual conflict arises because some religious folk view their holy texts as absolute fact and interpret it literally, which does not seem logically sound given that contexts change drastically over hundreds and thousands of years, as does human interaction. The context under which a text was written may be entirely different in the present day.

Essentially there are many other ways with which to reconcile the dissonance caused by apparent belief-disconfirming evidence. One is to simply not believe. Another is to re-think the view or the meaning of the belief. Still another is accepting that both observations may in fact be correct.

To provide an example - science observes that the world is around 4 billion years old. In Judeo-Christian religions the world was created in 7-days. There is an apparent conflict here. But is there really? Is the "7 days" in Man-time or God-time? Was the observer (who was a man) experiencing a vision of the creation in fast-forward? Clearly he could not observe the creation in real-time if it actually took place over 4 billion years! Education and knowledge was not the same at the time of the writing, so what was observed may have been interpreted differently. It is possible for the observation and the text to both be correct. It is also possible for that story to have been written by a schizophrenic.

Does that invalidate the entire religion? Some religious scholars might say so, but logically it does not make sense for me. Religion is a study, like anything else, and it changes over time and is subject to the flawed thinking of Man just as scientific understanding is sometimes incorrect and changes. If someone takes the texts at face-value then this type of thinking is flat out heresy. But I believe that one can be spiritual and have faith but also be critical of one's own religion and desire to modernize it, or refine it to its key principles. Some stories may be factually inaccurate (as histories can sometimes be) and scientific study may reveal these, but that does not render the purpose or meaning of the story useless or wrong. It merely highlights the fact that our understanding is incomplete and authored by men. If anything it would mean that religion shouldn't be stagnated in the far past but rather evolving with time and refining its message and meaning, distilling it down to the core parts and not letting followers get distracted by literal details caused by the weakness of Man.
Man is flawed and man's walk will be flawed and many times his interpretation. One great view in this is that the Bible is inerrant (most Christians fully agree with this), but man's interpretation must always be questioned.

There are some things in the Bible that are so simple and really non-questionable. The message of Jesus Christs's sacrifice so that man can be being born-again and renewed to God, is one of them. (John 3:16)

There are things that are complex, symbolic, and a mystery. Not everything was revealed to man in the Bible, even the Bible says this (Revelations speaks of this where John was told to seal up something he witnessed). For people who are trying to please God, and there are "grey" areas in their questioning of certain things in life that are pleasing, the Bible even addresses this.

Romans 14:13-23

13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Just my two cents, and I know this was an old post, but I had to comment. :-)

Figment

2012-04-04, 03:53 AM

There are some things in the Bible that are so simple and really non-questionable. The message of Jesus Christs's sacrifice so that man can be being born-again and renewed to God, is one of them. (John 3:16)

...uhm. That's the central questionable thing, because it makes SO many weird assumptions.

Untestable Assertion 1: there is a god
Untestable Assertion 2: Jesus is a son of said god (not any god, THAT god)
Untestable Assertion 3: Human sacrifice helps on a divine level
Untestable Assertion 4: Human sacrifice of son of aforementioned god undo's humanity's sins somehow (like the ultimate Ctrl-Z button combi that even works for future sins - basically, committing the ultimate sin (murder) on a person leads to absolution of sins?)
Untestable Assertion 5: Humanity's sins were actually forgiven
Untestable Assertion 6: Humanity's ability to "rebirth".

You were saying it is unquestionable. Yet how can you miss the above extremely obvious questionable things?

I don't even see the logic.

Malorn

2012-04-05, 01:55 AM

Meh.

Figment

2012-04-05, 06:39 AM

Atheists don't question the right of someone to believe what they want. They question the logic behind it and on a debate forum, they will debate.

Effective

2012-04-05, 02:11 PM

Religion gets into trouble when it is taken too literally and tries to refute proper science and observation. Science gets into trouble when Athiests try to use science as a weapon against the religious in their own modern crusade.

The only reason atheists do that, is because religion has been taking their texts literally for a very long time, and then persecuting those who don't believe the same way. Hatred against atheists is still strong in the US. And with people like Rick Santorum having so much power, it's scary to be an atheist in heavily conservative christian areas.

Warborn

2012-04-05, 02:19 PM

The bigger point is that atheism has nothing to do with science. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're an advocate of science. It just means you don't believe there's a god or gods. Why someone believes that, or what they believe instead, is not a part of the term.

Traak

2012-04-05, 10:25 PM

Atheists don't question the right of someone to believe what they want. They question the logic behind it and on a debate forum, they will debate.

Actually, that is patently false. These vaunted open-minded atheists that you claim to believe exist attack others with character assaults, gossip, and libel, slinging around words like "bigot" at anyone who doesn't bow down to their beliefs, especially when it comes to homosexuality.

Traak

2012-04-05, 10:29 PM

I refuse to even have a shred of respect for, let alone obey, any parent who punishes with spanking or stern words those who refuse to accept his or her parental authority, this is the ultimate in dictatorship. What can i say, im a man of principles.

If police went round arresting and imprisoning, and subjecting some to the death penalty people who wouldn't obey laws, even someone like me can see police are evil. But when religion enters the equation, so many people such as myself are blinded and cant see the wrong doing there.

I altered that quote to demonstrate how irrational it is to be mad at God because you choose to go to hell.

Baneblade

2012-04-05, 10:35 PM

I altered that quote to demonstrate how irrational it is to be mad at God because you choose to go to hell.

It's your hell, you go to it.

Traak

2012-04-05, 10:35 PM

Which would all be perfectly fine if people from group B didn't try to push their beliefs onto group A with legislation.

You mean the way group B is trying and succeeding in pushing their beliefs on group A with legislation? Just as it is legal in some states to have gay marriage, which is an oxymoron, in some states it is legal to have sex with animals.

Everyone thinks murder is bad and should be against the law. But what groups are against gay marriage? I think we all know that.

I don't know an exact tally of the beliefs of everyone who is against homosexual pseudo-marriage, but it has been constitutionally rejected in a growing number of states, and Christians are a part of it.

Why can't I buy beer on sunday in some states? Why is prostitution illegal, gambling illegal, drugs illegal? In some parts of the world women can't show their faces or heads. Here they just can't show their chest. Different body part, same religious nonsense.

Funny. So anything that smacks of any kind of morality you think should be banned? If that kind of system of power is of interest, live in a penitentiary. You will find, in addition, to people of like mind to yourself, plenty of audience to hear your beliefs in a society that has too much morality thrown at it, who will probably agree with you.

Traak

2012-04-05, 10:36 PM

It's your hell, you go to it.

It isn't my hell. I don't have one. There is one that exists, but I have no plans on being there.

Baneblade

2012-04-05, 10:44 PM

Well, according to the good book, all hell actually is is eternity without god.

So to an atheist, its eternal life the way they already exist.

Traak

2012-04-05, 10:52 PM

What he said

The issue that I have been dealing with, primarily, is that everyone believes stuff that is written by others that, for the most part he has never met, and are long since dead.

Christians largely believe God as laid out in the Bible. Non-Christians believe other stuff. But almost every single bit of it was written by others.

Calling the writings of YOUR favorite group or person more valid because they are supposedly more "scientific?" Is not necessarily valid. You say there is evidence that God does not exist. I have experiences that prove he does. I don't care whether you believe he exists. It isn't really the issue on which I've been focusing.

The main thing I have emphasized lately is that we all believe what others have told us. Most people, especially non-Christians, don't realize that that is how they are living their life, on belief. They believe a chair will support them if they have never been in the same country as that chair before arriving and sitting on it.

You believe in the people that espouse evolution and whatever, and I believe in God to whom such issues aren't even primary. The main issue with God is "Believe that Jesus Christ is raised from the dead and call him your Lord." That we don't obsess over science is not really important, because our moral system doesn't justify stuff like racism with evolution, etc. I don't murder because it is wrong, morally, not because there is some scientific justification for it.

I don't believe any race is "more evolved" (thus blacks are inferior) like your precious Charles Darwin because God doesn't believe it. Whether evolution is real or not is not the central issue. Life is far more concrete when your morals aren't based on your own convenience and what is more monetarily profitable. I don't have to labor, as some of you do, over questions like "Should I flirt with that married woman? Should I have sex with that girl who has a boyfriend? Should I steal this small thing from this major corporation?" I don't need to. Adultery, fornication, and theft are morally wrong. My decisions are made long before I am in a situation.

But as a non-Christian, the choices must be much harder to justify to yourself, since you don't really subscribe to any universal or concrete system of good and evil. I would hope you would disagree with child sex. But what if they are both 15? Then it's okay in your fluid and unreliable worlds? How about 14? 12? 6? I know, you have your right to pursue whatever you want to in life, because in your worlds, there is no really reliable right and wrong.

But your world is largely defined by the sayings and writings of others. You just subscribe to different "others" than we, the Christians, do.

Warborn

2012-04-06, 12:22 AM

Oh, well, you must be writing that from prison then, Traak, because the Bible makes moral assertions which if you followed through on these days, you would be imprisoned for life or possibly executed for.

Christians do not have a concrete "good vs. evil" moral compass. There isn't a Christian around who actually derives his or her morals from the Bible, because the stories from the Bible were written by many men who lived over a very long period of time during the more dark, bloody and brutal of humanity's existence. Our moral sense has long-since outgrown the Bible, such that while mere hundreds of years ago Christians were burning witches, torturing heretics and taking from the poor to build palaces for themselves, we 21st century types look back on those things and know that they were evil deeds performed by wicked men.

And while it isn't apparent as much in the US as elsewhere, soon even the socially retarded stuff about gays and women will become a thing of the past, too. Much of the rest of the civilized world has already moved beyond those topics for the most part, but one day you'll get to see what it's like when acting as if gays don't deserve equal rights is viewed like how people view the KKK. Ignorant, bigoted, hateful. The Bible in a nutshell, I guess.

Effective

2012-04-06, 02:30 AM

Christianity in a nutshell - YouTube

Figment

2012-04-06, 03:08 AM

Actually, that is patently false. These vaunted open-minded atheists that you claim to believe exist attack others with character assaults, gossip, and libel, slinging around words like "bigot" at anyone who doesn't bow down to their beliefs, especially when it comes to homosexuality.

Traak, you simply are a bigot because you fit the definition. You may not consider yourself a bigot, but every other person here, including most the other christians that responded to you, does. And yes, your stance of homosexuality is bigoted.

Think about it. That has nothing to do with being an atheist, it's everything to do with you having prejudices and being judgmental about a group of people based on them being "sinful" by a definition you got out of a stone age book. Don't judge lest you be judged yourself, remember? We're judging you as you are others and you simply don't like the outcome, like we don't like your judgment.

You've consistently used character assaults yourself in every debate I've seen you in. In fact, this post again is a character assault on - as usual - a large generalised group, this time atheists. When we "attack" though, it's because we provide an argumentation to why something is silly.

Frankly, that's perfectly fine if you have a solid reason to back up why something is silly and frankly, it's simply this easy to argue against "faith" based religion with no actual experiments or other solid evidence to back up any claims, while these claims are of epic proportions and typically should have left a lot of evidence in the ground and space. Yet it does not, not even remotely.

Hence you should just prepare to lose every fact based debate and feel like you're being attacked. If you are unprepared or unwilling to put your faith to scrutiny, don't post. You can put my assertions to scrutiny as much as you'd like, problem is, you have no fact based argumentation, but are 100% reliable on hearsay (Bible) from a single source, which contains lots and lots of blatant errors, plot holes, omissions, inconsistencies and worst of all, is completely based on assumptions from a stone age - iron age people with a severe lack of understanding of even basic natural phenomena.

If we're just thinking in untested assertions, you can win any debate you want, but it won't ever convince anyone who has not already chosen to be religious so the circle argumentation "makes sense".

In the same sense that I do not believe Hercules to have placed the rock of Gibraltar because of geology and simply because humans cannot have that much strength, I don't believe Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine. Since I can show that no man can walk on water and that wine consists of completely different molecular make up and you claim someone can the burden of proof lies with you, it's you who has to prove your claim. If you can't and even refuse to, who are you to deny us the right to call you silly or self-delusional, much like you would call the stories about Hercules a fairy tale?

Figment

2012-04-06, 03:42 AM

You mean the way group B is trying and succeeding in pushing their beliefs on group A with legislation? Just as it is legal in some states to have gay marriage, which is an oxymoron, in some states it is legal to have sex with animals.

How is allowing gay marriage for others impeding on your personal freedoms, compared to NOT allowing gay marriage being an impediment on the freedom of these individuals?

What fundamental right of yours is being stripped from you? The right to deny others the freedom of living together in the way they want to?

And did you really just compare homosexuality (voluntary sex between two adults of same sex) with beastiality (sex with an animal which cannot protest)? And I recall you making an earlier comparison to pedophilia, where you argued that that would be allowed as well because of some "inner child", while not at all listening to the type of argumentation being used.

Can't you really imagine that there are sensible reasons for not condoning the latter two types? Like it's sensible to not condone pedophilia, because the child (one of the two parties involved) could not protect itself, can often not even expres itself, is easily abused and too trusting and all in all is absolutely not ready for sex? In that sense, pedophilia can be compared to beastiality, because the animal cannot speak for itself or do much about it, next to incredible hygienic issues.

Your biases and statements such as the above is what makes you bigoted. You judge people and actually hate them for it, it is quite clear you hate atheists or at the very least have an unhealthy dislike of them, like you have with some other things that "don't suit you".

You reason that if someone else gets more freedoms to live their lives in their own way and make their own choices, this is somehow bad. Yet whenever it suits you, you demand any rights to be in place or laws to be removed. How very convenient of you.

How is for instance teaching evolution in class properly - without it being done in the Intelligent Design variant - an infringement of fundamental rights? Creationism is a fundamental part of a religion, meaning due to seperation of state and church, the state should not obligate people to learn about any particular faith based religion as truth. That is a logical argument to protect people from the state having a bias for any religion.

Creationism can be informed about in sunday school, mosques or any religion class. Hell, as long as other religions are represented as well, in history class. For instance, teaching about the pantheon gods in Latin and Greek class is fundamentally needed to understand the history of these people. Saying the pantheon gods would be real would however impinge on personal freedom. In that sense, it's fine to teach about christianity, islam and judism in general in relation to society or history classes, but none of these should ever be taught as a fundamental truth, because then the government would support indoctrination by a specific religion.

Evolution however, is an incredibly important scientific concept and should be taught in biology classes, as biology is a science class. If you look at those argueing against evolution for instance, the ignorance is of epic proportions. How can you argue against something you don't know anything about? For us atheists it's easy: we just have to read your book and point out the inconsistencies.

Even easier is the skeptic's annotated bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/), which points out flaws and the people of the religions under scrutiny get a chance to discuss and explain flaws.

Similarly, I would suggest visiting http://www.talkorigins.org for any question you may have on evolution, where every claim and statement made by evolution is backed up by physical evidence and real world examples.

I've heard you go on about faith and hearsay continuously, but this is not hearsay. I check the evidence provided as much as I can and in contrast to faith based religions, where 0% is consistent, with the sciences so far the fast majority has been proven consistent.

As a BSc in Aerospace Engineering, I've worked with countless physics and their applications and was able to verify or derive everything personally. With derivation, I mean that when I calculate something based on my own observations, I get the exact - EXACT - same result as someone else and the model fits completely with observations in the real world.

That is something I cannot say for faith.

I don't know an exact tally of the beliefs of everyone who is against homosexual pseudo-marriage, but it has been constitutionally rejected in a growing number of states, and Christians are a part of it.

If it's a majority vote and the majority is baptist conservative christian, well yeah. Then you're pushing your beliefs on others.

Funny. So anything that smacks of any kind of morality you think should be banned? If that kind of system of power is of interest, live in a penitentiary. You will find, in addition, to people of like mind to yourself, plenty of audience to hear your beliefs in a society that has too much morality thrown at it, who will probably agree with you.

Monopolising morality again, are we?