The "Religion" thread

[shazbooger]

While listening to a variety of members breach in favour of their religion (DePreez) over my religion (O'Driscoll) in another thread, I got to thinking about how the whole thread was like arguing with a theist over the existence of their god.

Personally I continually find it amazing that otherwise intelligent men and women can really believe the nonsense in both the Koran and the Bible yet;
France could be a predominantly Muslim nation in 20 years.
22% of the American population are certain that Jesus is on his way sometime in the next 50 years. Another 22% think its probable he'll turn up to bring them all to heaven. Over 60% want creationism thought in the schools as a form of Science!
As both sides continue to push themselves into the political arena, do we need to think about mving to Sweden? or are they the first to go?

[Gavin]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 20 2009, 01:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417222')</div>
While listening to a variety of members breach in favour of their religion (DePreez) over my religion (O&#39;Driscoll) in another thread, I got to thinking about how the whole thread was like arguing with a theist over the existence of their god.

Personally I continually find it amazing that otherwise intelligent men and women can really believe the nonsense in both the Koran and the Bible yet;
France could be a predominantly Muslim nation in 20 years.
22% of the American population are certain that Jesus is on his way sometime in the next 50 years. Another 22% think its probable he&#39;ll turn up to bring them all to heaven. Over 60% want creationism thought in the schools as a form of Science!
As both sides continue to push themselves into the political arena, do we need to think about mving to Sweden? or are they the first to go?[/b]
Amen to that brother. I am currently studying about the creation myths from the past, namely the Hebrew Bible, Greek and Babylonian creation myths. It is incredible to see the amount of similarities in all three texts. All three hint to creation coming around due to an epic struggle. The Bible has a water dragon which God must defeat in order to make the world. In the Babylonian myth the world is created from the dead body of Tiamat (another water dragon, like in the Bible) after he is killed by Marduk. The Greek creation myth the Goddess of All Things desired to make order out of Chaos, this could be another hint to warfare and an epic struggle.
Then we can go on and look at the story of the first woman, and the release of evil into the world - only the Greek and Bible myths contain this.
Religion is just taken, and adjusted, from culture to culture.

[Jer1cho]

In b4 the close, and will give my 2 cents:

I just get annoyed at the following:

- Religion is used as a scapegoat for anything positive. If a cancer patient is healed, it&#39;s a miracle that God made happen. If someone is brutally murdered, then it was satan. Bull****. You can&#39;t change human nature.

- When people say God created every living thing on the planet. This is also crap imo. Did anyone ever see that video of those Ukranian Maniacs that killed that guy with hammers and screwdrivers? Those guys were NOT made. They were born, thanks to their parents having sex.

- I don&#39;t like giving thanks for my food. Especially when i buy and cook it. It feels like I&#39;m lying.

- I also think that if there was a creator, he is long finished with this planet. Maybe that&#39;s why the universe is so big. Every galaxy he makes turns out the same, so then he makes another one, so that he can hopefully get it right the next try.

- I also don&#39;t think we were put on this earth to dedicate our lives worshipping a god, so that we can live forever. If that was the case, then why bother in the first place? Have everyone born perfectly in heaven Problem solved.

- People say we were created in God&#39;s image, but i think it&#39;s the other way around. People will do anything to get their way, and everything any of us know about religion, was put there in the first place by man.

I have no issue with anybody that is religious to the max. Just don&#39;t try to feed it to me. I like to think outside the box thank you very much.

[Sir Speedy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Oct 19 2009, 03:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417227')</div>
In b4 the close, and will give my 2 cents:

I just get annoyed at the following:

- Religion is used as a scapegoat for anything positive. If a cancer patient is healed, it&#39;s a miracle that God made happen. If someone is brutally murdered, then it was satan. Bull****. You can&#39;t change human nature.[/b]
The inverse of this is that an argument against religion is that God lets bad things happen, when he should not. It is not God&#39;s business to maintain a happy world; that&#39;s our job. The Futurama episode outlined this clearly. Of course, the proportion of good people to bad people tends terribly to the latter, so it is impossible for evil to not exist.

And the Bible is nothing but a book of morals that has become less relevant as society has progressed. The best form of Christianty is the one where their text is not taken at face value. Those who take it literally seriously need a head check.

Also, the best belief ever invented in the history of the planet is pantheism, so fu bitches.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 19 2009, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417239')</div>
And the Bible is nothing but a book of morals that has become less relevant as society has progressed.[/b]
Your right in calling them nutjobs but over half of the American voting public believe that the world is about 10,000 years old. less relevant?

For a harmless book that offers moral guidance why does the church continue to preach that condoms are evil, aiding the rapid spread of HIV throughout the developing world?

Religions continue to do some serious harm.

[Sir Speedy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 19 2009, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417248')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 19 2009, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417239')
And the Bible is nothing but a book of morals that has become less relevant as society has progressed.[/b]
Your right in calling them nutjobs but over half of the American voting public believe that the world is about 10,000 years old. less relevant?

For a harmless book that offers moral guidance why does the church continue to preach that condoms are evil, aiding the rapid spread of HIV throughout the developing world?

Religions continue to do some serious harm.
[/b][/quote]
Half of the American voting public? Let&#39;s see... That works out as just over 2% of the world&#39;s population. Do you have evidence to support that figure anyway? Over half seems like a ridiculous figure...

Then again, I&#39;ve read that only one tenth of the USA&#39;s population are &#39;non-believers&#39; as Obama termed it, so you might be right.

And the spread of HIV and STI&#39;s is as a result of the lack of education being provided for those living in the LEDC&#39;s, not because of the influence of Christianity. What makes you think that Christianity is the prevalent religion in these countries?

[O'Rothlain]

Well, this isn&#39;t the first "religion" thread on this forum and it surely won&#39;t be the last.
So, what am I sick of?
Half-assed opinions of religion. You don&#39;t bother to take the time to study a religion but are more than willing to offer your criticism based on hearsay from half-assed followers of said religion.
Here&#39;s the problem with the majority of Christians today: they don&#39;t fully practice their religious faith and know very little about it. Then people like the previous posters get their ideals of Christianity from these people and make absurd statements about God and the Devil, etc...
Creationism and Evolution are both theories of how the earth was made. End of the story, there is nothing more scientific about Evolutionist Big Bang than there is Creationist...uhm...Creation. This is not me saying that Natural Selection doesn&#39;t take place, I&#39;m merely talking about how the earth began...We don&#39;t know how it began, so regardless of what we teach, it&#39;s an unprovable theory. So, what is wrong with presenting both theories? Saying, some people believe theory A, some people believe theory B. The truth is we don&#39;t know. Then move on from the subject.
What irks me about some of your rambling is you are attacking Christianity which for better or worse has created the world you live in. Without the organization of the church, Western Civilization wouldn&#39;t be where we are today. I know you can say without religion a lot of horrible things wouldn&#39;t have happend too. The simple point is it got us to where we are, which is vastly far ahead of the rest of the un-Western world.
The basic tenants of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are teaching us how to be good people that treat eachother well, and how to build a spiritual connection with our creator. You can attack the missuse of religion all day long but don&#39;t attack the religion itself.

[Sir Speedy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 19 2009, 04:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417250')</div>
Well, this isn&#39;t the first "religion" thread on this forum and it surely won&#39;t be the last.
So, what am I sick of?
Half-assed opinions of religion. You don&#39;t bother to take the time to study a religion but are more than willing to offer your criticism based on hearsay from half-assed followers of said religion.
Here&#39;s the problem with the majority of Christians today: they don&#39;t fully practice their religious faith and know very little about it. Then people like the previous posters get their ideals of Christianity from these people and make absurd statements about God and the Devil, etc...[/b]
That&#39;s rather bigoted of you. How can you be so sure that these &#39;half-assed&#39; followers are actually half-assed? And then, what makes you think your belief is the definite one?

Also, this is the only religion topic I&#39;ve encountered in my two years of being here...

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 19 2009, 04:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417250')</div>
Well, this isn&#39;t the first "religion" thread on this forum and it surely won&#39;t be the last.
So, what am I sick of?
Half-assed opinions of religion. You don&#39;t bother to take the time to study a religion but are more than willing to offer your criticism based on hearsay from half-assed followers of said religion.
Here&#39;s the problem with the majority of Christians today: they don&#39;t fully practice their religious faith and know very little about it. Then people like the previous posters get their ideals of Christianity from these people and make absurd statements about God and the Devil, etc...
Creationism and Evolution are both theories of how the earth was made. End of the story, there is nothing more scientific about Evolutionist Big Bang than there is Creationist...uhm...Creation. This is not me saying that Natural Selection doesn&#39;t take place, I&#39;m merely talking about how the earth began...We don&#39;t know how it began, so regardless of what we teach, it&#39;s an unprovable theory. So, what is wrong with presenting both theories? Saying, some people believe theory A, some people believe theory B. The truth is we don&#39;t know. Then move on from the subject.
What irks me about some of your rambling is you are attacking Christianity which for better or worse has created the world you live in. Without the organization of the church, Western Civilization wouldn&#39;t be where we are today. I know you can say without religion a lot of horrible things wouldn&#39;t have happend too. The simple point is it got us to where we are, which is vastly far ahead of the rest of the un-Western world.
The basic tenants of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are teaching us how to be good people that treat eachother well, and how to build a spiritual connection with our creator. You can attack the missuse of religion all day long but don&#39;t attack the religion itself.[/b]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 19 2009, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417252')</div>
That&#39;s rather bigoted of you. How can you be so sure that these &#39;half-assed&#39; followers are actually half-assed? And then, what makes you think your belief is the definite one?[/b]

It&#39;s not bigoted of me at all. What I&#39;m saying is that a load of people say "I&#39;m a Christian" yet take very little time to study Christian Text, Philosophy and truly learn what the religion teaches. Instead, they get an kindergarten view of God and Jesus and right and wrong and heaven and hell and begin waxing philosophical about how they don&#39;t understand how a good God can let bad things happen to good people. If you actually read the entirety of the Bible (let alone the hundreds of texts outside of that written either by rabbis or early church fathers) you get the real view of what is going on.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 19 2009, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417252')</div>
Also, this is the only religion topic I&#39;ve encountered in my two years of being here...[/b]
Then you haven&#39;t looked hard enough, because we&#39;ve had several in the few years I&#39;ve been around. Maybe not one of any substance for 8 months to a year, but we&#39;ve had them for sure.

[Sir Speedy]

Again though, how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one?

I&#39;m out of my depth here, for sure, but this is still a fair question.

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 19 2009, 05:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417252')</div>
Also, this is the only religion topic I&#39;ve encountered in my two years of being here...[/b]

I think that&#39;s because the last one was so turbulent!

My say in this is that religion is a human phenomenon, like war. Any civilization, existing completely isolated from one another, had these 2 characteristics in various forms. That&#39;s because most wars, if not all, have religious undertones.

Perhaps religion is the evolutionary bi-product of a highly developed brain? Like our unique ability to appreciate the arts.

The brain is a powerful organ, if you truly believe it in your mind, it becomes your reality. Get a devout Christian, Muslim, Hindu & Jew together and they&#39;ll all be 100% sure their religion is &#39;the one&#39;. They&#39;ll all pass a lie detector test with flying colors when questioned on their religion.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 19 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417261')</div>
Again though, how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one?

I&#39;m out of my depth here, for sure, but this is still a fair question.[/b]
I&#39;m not talking about Biblical Interpretation. Sure that is up for debate. How does one define sanctification? Where does justification come from? Is there a "rapture" and if so does it happen before the tribulation, during the tribulation or after the tribulation or, is the book of revelation a warning for the early church and not for the far off future? Did the spiritual gifts given to the apostles end with them, or are they still a present movement of God?
Those are questions of Biblical interpretation. What I&#39;m talking about is ones understanding of the Bible from a factual basis. I am saying that most christians don&#39;t know what the bible says about most topics, let alone being equiped to debate the interpretation of those given ideals.

[Sir Speedy]

Looking at the questions you provided regarding Biblical Interpretation, I&#39;d say I was still talking about the same thing as you.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 19 2009, 11:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417266')</div>
Looking at the questions you provided regarding Biblical Interpretation, I&#39;d say I was still talking about the same thing as you.[/b]
Right, but I&#39;m not talking about the interpretation of the Bible. I&#39;m talking about general knowledge. I used those as examples of what I&#39;m not talking about.
Let&#39;s take the 10 commandments, there is not much up for interpretation there. Most people can get a pretty general sense of what God and Moses were trying to get across. That&#39;s general Bible knowledge, and I&#39;m saying the average Christian doesn&#39;t know the tenants of his or her faith.

[MunsterMan]

Organized Religion got us where we are today? Load of ******** man.

I find the idea of creationism being taught in the classroom silly too, even in a country where the Catholic church runs something like 90% of the schools that doesn&#39;t happen, and Darwin&#39;s theory have been taught since the 60&#39;s.

[Sir Speedy]

Fair enough. You&#39;d be wise not to assume we form our knowledge on the matter from what those people say, though.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 19 2009, 05:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417269')</div>
Right, but I&#39;m not talking about the interpretation of the Bible. I&#39;m talking about general knowledge. I used those as examples of what I&#39;m not talking about. Let&#39;s take the 10 commandments, there is not much up for interpretation there. Most people can get a pretty general sense of what God and Moses were trying to get across.[/b]

So because some Christians couldnt be arsed reading the bible they are getting it all wrong. Does that mean the Creationists and those of the thoery of "The Stork" are alright because they take the bible literally? You have a problem with people who dont believe the Noahs arc story?

[dullonien]

I believe there is a place for religion in our world, not that I believe in any for of it. Whenever I am stopped in the street etc. I simply state that I&#39;m a believer of the basic principles that are importand in every religion. I basically believe in being a nice person, and for that reason it makes me a much better person than many &#39;religious&#39; people out there. Wheathor or not they understand their religion makes no difference, it&#39;s how they live their life.

Believing in a God gives many people a purpose to their lives, something I personally don&#39;t require to be happy, but I understand those who do. However I find it hard to understand how someone can believe whole heartedly in something like the Bible. I do not believe for a second that creationism should be taught in schools. I understand O&#39;Roth stating that evolution hasn&#39;t been proven 100%, however in my option creationism has been proved to be untrue. The very existance of fossills from millions of years ago, disprove the theory. It goes against one of the most fundamental parts of the Bible, and to me invalidates the rest of it! The only explenation Christians can come up with is, &#39;God&#39;s testing us&#39;. Now everyones free to believe what they want, but the very idea of teaching this is not on.

I know this is a tough subject, I hope I haven&#39;t insulted anyone.

[Sir Speedy]

People overlook the fact that Creationism and Evolution can co-exist.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Oct 19 2009, 11:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417271')</div>
Organized Religion got us where we are today? Load of ******** man.

I find the idea of creationism being taught in the classroom silly too, even in a country where the Catholic church runs something like 90% of the schools that doesn&#39;t happen, and Darwin&#39;s theory have been taught since the 60&#39;s.[/b]
I have no problem with Darwin&#39;s ideas, as I&#39;ve stated. And yes, Organized religion picked up the place of the Roman Empire and held together civilization. It indeed did get us where we are today. I&#39;m not saying it was Christ&#39;s principals that got us here, I&#39;m saying the wars, the conquests, the preservation of literature (mainly Irish monks) etc got us exactly where we are today. Without the Church the Western world would have crumbled more than it did after the fall of Rome.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 19 2009, 11:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417272')</div>
Fair enough. You&#39;d be wise not to assume we form our knowledge on the matter from what those people say, though.[/b]

I don&#39;t assume everyone does, but some of the statements already made show a very miniscule understanding of regligion. It&#39;s easy to critisize what you don&#39;t understand. If you&#39;re not well versed in the Bible it&#39;s easy to say, "your religion says this..." Even the bible itself says " for a lack of knowledge the people perish."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 19 2009, 11:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417275')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 19 2009, 05:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417269')
Right, but I&#39;m not talking about the interpretation of the Bible. I&#39;m talking about general knowledge. I used those as examples of what I&#39;m not talking about. Let&#39;s take the 10 commandments, there is not much up for interpretation there. Most people can get a pretty general sense of what God and Moses were trying to get across.[/b]

So because some Christians couldnt be arsed reading the bible they are getting it all wrong. Does that mean the Creationists and those of the thoery of "The Stork" are alright because they take the bible literally? You have a problem with people who dont believe the Noahs arc story?
[/b][/quote]
People who take the Bible literally tend to not believe that babies are delivered by storks. And yes, people who can&#39;t be arsed to read, usually get things wrong.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 19 2009, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417280')</div>
People overlook the fact that Creationism and Evolution can co-exist.[/b]
That&#39;s all I&#39;m getting at. I&#39;m reading a book right now called "Finding Darwin&#39;s God." I&#39;m not saying I agree with this principle, but the fact remains the two can co-exist and do for a lot of people, including highly rated scientist. This book was recommended to me by a friend involved in research.


All I&#39;m getting at is that some of the criticism hurled at religion, and Christianity in general, is misinformed.
People get angry at being told what is right and what is wrong, especially from a set of principles and stories that go back thousands of years. Mankind has been on a quest since the beginning to have a spritual connection with whatever created us. So, fair enough, you can find a lot of similar stories and explanations for things. It doesn&#39;t mean that there isn&#39;t some truth in them.
As far as the Flood story goes (Noah&#39;s Ark) it&#39;s a universal story found in every ancient civilization. So, it is my belief that it happened. Whether you take the Bible literally or not is up to you.

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dullonien @ Oct 19 2009, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417278')</div>
Believing in a God gives many people a purpose to their lives, something I personally don&#39;t require to be happy[/b]

I can relate to this 100%. Not gonna go into specifics but my gut feeling tells me the same.

[gingergenius]

The religion debate is like the chicken and egg debate. Endless.

There is no proof of any supernatural beings whatsoever. At the same time, there is no proof that there aren&#39;t any.

Personally I choose to believe what has so far been proven, but many others have &#39;faith&#39; which qualifies mere beliefs. Personal belief is the key to it all. I dislike religion, but I have no problem with people having a deepheld personal faith.

The problem I have is with organised religion. The fact that the vast majority of religious people (and maybe atheists too) share the same beliefs as the families they come from. To me that doesn&#39;t suggest it&#39;s something they&#39;ve made an informed judgement on; it is more of a lazy, cultural commitment. Equally, I hate the idea that schools or even nations can specify a particular religion as fundamental to its values.

The state and society as a whole should be utterly secular - not anti-religion, but it should be treated as an irrelevance. What people do in their own time is up to them.

[durbutter]

"He&#39;s not the Messiah, he&#39;s a very naughty boy!!!"

[dullonien]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 19 2009, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417295')</div>
The religion debate is like the chicken and egg debate. Endless.[/b]
The egg. Well if you believe in evolution anyway.........

[bristol-iain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noidsay @ Oct 19 2009, 09:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417300')</div>
"He&#39;s not the Messiah, he&#39;s a very naughty boy!!!"[/b]

:lol: :lol:

Damn it, I can&#39;t believe I forgot to post that myself.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 19 2009, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417295')</div>
There is no proof of any supernatural beings whatsoever. At the same time, there is no proof that there aren&#39;t any.[/b]
So by that logic you subscribe to the validity of the celestial teapot, the big flying spagetti monster and the invisible pink unicorn? All of which, by using the same logic are equally viable as deities (and in the case of the last two, a hell of a lot more fun).

I also dont agree with the moderate view that religion is harmless, and this wonderful source of moral guidance. I dont agree that it is taboo to laugh at people with those beliefs. If someone told me on here the Fourie DuPreez was a better player than Brian O&#39;Driscoll I would laugh at him for his idiot beliefs (;) ), the same should apply to believers in big flying spagetti monsters, virgin mothers, and people who believe the world is only 10,000 years old.

While I have no problem with people who keep it to themselves (and away from their own kids), I think its appropriate to be worried by the recent developments in the US and the middle east and Africa. Religion is not keeping itself to itself. The political lobbying in the US is growing is in danger of causing real harm, while the growing menace of fundamentalism (on both sides) is also well past alarming.

You cant just sit there and say ahhh they are okay when they mind their own business. They DONT stay there and mind their own business.

Oh and I refuse to respond to Roth until he gets his head around the contradictions in his own (actually unstated) position :)

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 20 2009, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417363')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 19 2009, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417295')
There is no proof of any supernatural beings whatsoever. At the same time, there is no proof that there aren&#39;t any.[/b]
So by that logic you subscribe to the validity of the celestial teapot, the big flying spagetti monster and the invisible pink unicorn? All of which, by using the same logic are equally viable as deities (and in the case of the last two, a hell of a lot more fun).

I also dont agree with the moderate view that religion is harmless, and this wonderful source of moral guidance. I dont agree that it is taboo to laugh at people with those beliefs. If someone told me on here the Fourie DuPreez was a better player than Brian O&#39;Driscoll I would laugh at him for his idiot beliefs (;) ), the same should apply to believers in big flying spagetti monsters, virgin mothers, and people who believe the world is only 10,000 years old.

While I have no problem with people who keep it to themselves (and away from their own kids), I think its appropriate to be worried by the recent developments in the US and the middle east and Africa. Religion is not keeping itself to itself. The political lobbying in the US is growing is in danger of causing real harm, while the growing menace of fundamentalism (on both sides) is also well past alarming.

You cant just sit there and say ahhh they are okay when they mind their own business. They DONT stay there and mind their own business.

Oh and I refuse to respond to Roth until he gets his head around the contradictions in his own (actually unstated) position :)
[/b][/quote]

Considering we&#39;re coming from the same standpoint, there&#39;s not much point in deconstructing each other&#39;s arguments, especially since what you seem to have a particular problem with is organised religion (which I too said was what particularly ****** me off).

However, it is unrealistic to suggest that people won&#39;t hold personal beliefs. A lot of people DO mind their own business... religion may be an important part of their life, but they don&#39;t impose it on anyone else. And as long as they do this, I&#39;m fine with it. It may irritate me in the same way people who vote Conservative irritate me, but it&#39;s their individual choice and it&#39;s not my job to lord it over them and tell them I know better.

As I said, ideally EVERYTHING would be separated from religion until faith is merely something you practice in your own time. But people will always be attracted to religious beliefs, simply because all religions provide an answer to 1) where we came from, and 2) where we&#39;ll go when we die. It takes a lot of thought and bravery to say "I have no soul, I&#39;ll simply rot away." Many people don&#39;t have that.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 20 2009, 06:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417363')</div>
Oh and I refuse to respond to Roth until he gets his head around the contradictions in his own (actually unstated) position :)[/b]
Please point out my contradictions.
My position?
1. There is a God/Creator
2. Mankind was created for a reason
3. We, obviously, have free will
More technically, I&#39;m a Christian and I wholeheartedly believe that there are absolute truths. I think all world religions have some very strong similarities which means "In The Beginning" there was a shared heritage and that the story has, in some cultures/religions deviated from the truth. Because we have no way to prove these things we have to have faith, which requires going on a spiritual journey coupled with a pursuit of knowledge.
While a lot of you don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s arse about religion, and in fact some of you blame it for everything, I can and will defend the tennants of my faith which unfortunately have been misconstrued by horrible applications over the last 2,000 years and yes, TBN.

[dullonien]

It&#39;s quite easy to blaim religion for everything. Most wars etc. are fought over religion. However it&#39;s just in human nature to fight, wheather that&#39;s over religion, over land, or more recently over oil etc. For that reason it&#39;s impossible and unfair to say that the world would be a better place without religion. There are just some horrible people in this world who use religion as an excuse for the actions they take.

I think gingergenius has very similar views to mine. As long as people don&#39;t push religion on me, I won&#39;t push my athiest views on them. I used to have a nice old woman come to the door in a previous flat, she didn&#39;t preach about Christian views, she just had a good old chat about very genral things. She didn&#39;t hold it against me that I wasn&#39;t religious, but instead chose carefully what to talk to me about. Although, I would have prefered if she didn&#39;t call (was always in the middle of eating lol), I was happy to have a 10-15min chat with her.

I was brought up in a loose religious family. I went to sunday school and sometimes went to chapel etc. I decided for myself that I didn&#39;t believe, and to be perfectly honest I think my parents have lost any belief they once had aswell.

O&#39;Rothlain&#39;s beliefs are HIS beliefs. If that&#39;s what he believes in, he&#39;d be stupid not to teach them to his children. That would otherwise go against everything he believes in. So I don&#39;t agree with ginger and Logorrhea in that sense. It&#39;s impossible to keep religion and life seperate, as to a huge amount of people, religion is one of the most important aspects of life. Wheather or not I understand, makes no difference. It doesn&#39;t change the way I view O&#39;Rothlain, or any other religious person. There&#39;s space for every religion or non religion on this earth, the sooner everyone realises that, the quicker this world can become a peacfull place to live for all.

[O'Rothlain]

Exactly, if I say I believe in what I believe in, then why would I not tell my children. I say I believe in Christ and in the need for salvation and the unfortunate downside of eternal damnation if one doesn&#39;t set his life right with God in accordance to the scriptures. Why would I want my children not knowing what I know if I sincerely believe in that reality. Moreover, why would I not want anyone I know to know these things? I&#39;d have to be a complete horses ass not to tell people that are in my life. This is why your old neighbor visited you, dullonein. I&#39;m not going to beat people into acceptance, I&#39;m not the freakin&#39; inquisition, but the sincerety of my beliefs compells me to tell other people. This is why religious people don&#39;t keep their views to themselves. We want everyone to take the opportunity to reconcile their life.
I know that you may not agree with my belief structure, but hopefully you can at least see that religious people that tell you about their faith and encourage you to explore it, are at least more caring people than those who keep their mouths shut. Silent Ommision is sometimes the worst thing in this world.

[dullonien]

I indeed have no problem with people informing me of their beliefs. But it must be done in a friendly and plesant manner (something that doesn&#39;t always happen). I&#39;m also not atall keen on people stopping me in the street (this doesn&#39;t just apply to religion, but more towards charity workers), or knocking on my door to preach to me.

I&#39;m sure you feel exactly the same way O&#39;Rothlain, and wouldn&#39;t like an athiest knocking on your door or stopping you in the street just to tell you that you&#39;re beliefs are a load of tosh, and believing in nothing is the correct way to live. Treat others as you wish to be treated, that&#39;s one of the only &#39;rules&#39; necessary to live an honest, good life.

[MunsterMan]

It&#39;s the Golden rule, present in all religions pretty much Dull.

If you believe you are going to live forever in paradise much much greater than anything we have here on earth you&#39;d probably want to tell people about it in fairness.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 20 2009, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417387')</div>
Please point out my contradictions.[/b]
Absolute truths based on revealed learning and blind faith? If your going that far why not believe in fairies, trolls, elves, King Arthur, and Wales being a real country.
Darwinism and Creationism?
Creationism is based on the dismissal of absolute truths isnt it?
Christianity saved Europe post Roman empire, when many people believe it was Christianity that killed the Empire :)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dullonien @ Oct 20 2009, 05:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417389')</div>
Most wars etc. are fought over religion. However it&#39;s just in human nature to fight, wheather that&#39;s over religion, over land, or more recently over oil etc. For that reason it&#39;s impossible and unfair to say that the world would be a better place without religion.[/b]

Why dont you hear of Athiest suicide bombers?

Its bull****, the entire middle eastern conflict is based on the Jews "divine" rites as set out in Exodus. An event that archaeologists have pretty much proven never took place in the first place. Bosnia, Iraq (ongoing), Afghanistan (ongoing), Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Somalia, The Sudan, the Holocaust ................. f*** it, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Jihads through the ages. Remove religion and these people have little to fight over. The world would still have some form of violence, but a hell of a lot less. I&#39;d take that thank you very much.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dullonien @ Oct 20 2009, 05:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417389')</div>
There&#39;s space for every religion or non religion on this earth[/b]

Not according to ambrahamic religions. Christianity preaches that all non believers are going to hell. Islam states that non believers must convert or die (and then I&#39;m presuming there is some form of eternal damnation) and of course anyone leaving the religion can be killed. This is the word of god according to the Bible or Koran. More recent speculation is expecting the "rapture" to occur in the not so distant future, in which all believers will be swept away by angels (or sumpin) and the rest of us are pretty much f***ed (though not literally of course, he&#39;ll leave that up to his chosen ones I presume and it&#39;ll only be the kids).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 20 2009, 06:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417396')</div>
Exactly, if I say I believe in what I believe in, then why would I not tell my children. I say I believe in Christ and in the need for salvation and the unfortunate downside of eternal damnation if one doesn&#39;t set his life right with God in accordance to the scriptures.[/b]

This is the beauty of the trap. Tell a 3 or 4 year old what to believe. If for some reason they show sense and doubt what your saying, hit them with the eternal damnation line (even though "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." ....... me arse) Tell them that it was all written down in this book by God, but dont tell them the majority of the book was written anywhere from 50-250 years after the events, by a politically motivated roman emperor, and if they question any of the gizzillion contradictions just tell em to shut up, have faith and have some ice-cream (though they should thank god first).

Dawkins put it pretty much perfectly when he called it the worst kind of child abuse.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Oct 20 2009, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417410')</div>
If you believe you are going to live forever in paradise much much greater than anything we have here on earth you&#39;d probably want to tell people about it in fairness.[/b]

Love that kind of stuff. Its brilliant.

[Jer1cho]

I just think that religion was created to nullify the fear of death. It&#39;s used as a reason to live. Someone dies, and everybody says that "we will see you soon" and "He is with God now" etc etc. It just strikes me as a certain closure people need. If that makes their lives better, then that&#39;s ok.

I don&#39;t know what God is, but i know what he is not. He is not what we say he is, because every perception of God, was created by man. Every religion sees God the way they would like him to be. Certain religion&#39;s cause people to do good unto others, as their beliefs tell them to. Others kill in the name of God, as their laws and beliefs are different.

What i can say, is that most people are scared of 2 things. One, is the end. Death. Nothingness. The other, as an eternity of endless suffering, screaming and burning. I have a lot of mates who preach to me with a beer in one hand, a cigarette in the other, and then afterwards go home with some skank and bang her.

Another thing i have noticed is at church. Every single session i have ever been to, seems to have one message stated over and over again. Basically, that Jesus died for every sin you will ever commit. We are all sinners, but He gave his life, etc etc. It&#39;s as if everyone gets their sigh of relief every week, as they are continually reminded that their sins have been cleansed by Jesus, and all they need to do is believe and ask for forgiveness. It gives people closure, and that&#39;s probably exactly what these people need to hear.

I just think that if there is a God, he has long left this world, and we are on our own. But that&#39;s just me.

[feicarsinn]

I&#39;ll throw in three words to this debate:

Opiate of the masses.



That is all.

[Sir Speedy]

You math at fail.

[bristol-iain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Oct 21 2009, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417476')</div>
I&#39;ll throw in three words to this debate:

Opiate of the masses.



That is all.[/b]

Ummmm

[feicarsinn]

Heh. I iz funi.





Hem, intentional of course

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 21 2009, 07:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417464')</div>
Absolute truths based on revealed learning and blind faith? If your going that far why not believe in fairies, trolls, elves, King Arthur, and Wales being a real country.
Darwinism and Creationism?
Creationism is based on the dismissal of absolute truths isnt it?
Christianity saved Europe post Roman empire, when many people believe it was Christianity that killed the Empire :)[/b]
The Roman Empire failed when they split it up amongst more than one ruler. Let&#39;s not forget that the Byzantine Empire, which was Christian, flourished when the Western End fell because of rivalries and invasion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 21 2009, 07:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417464')</div>
This is the beauty of the trap. Tell a 3 or 4 year old what to believe. If for some reason they show sense and doubt what your saying, hit them with the eternal damnation line (even though "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." ....... me arse) Tell them that it was all written down in this book by God, but dont tell them the majority of the book was written anywhere from 50-250 years after the events, by a politically motivated roman emperor, and if they question any of the gizzillion contradictions just tell em to shut up, have faith and have some ice-cream (though they should thank god first).Dawkins put it pretty much perfectly when he called it the worst kind of child abuse.[/b]
What Politically motivated Roman emperor are you making reference to? Constantine? The council of Nicea? You&#39;re very flawed in your information. These books were written within the lifetimes of the respected authors. That is historical fact, not just a Christian Myth. Even secular atheist/agnostic professors, when referencing the Bible as a source, will confirm this.
Regardless of that, Some people do choose christianity because they are scared of the afterlife. Some choose it because they want a relationship with their creator and see hell as eternity seperated from the creator. That&#39;s all up for biblical interpretation. I also cannot help what people tell their kids exactly, but I do know that if I love and/or care for someone, I&#39;m going to tell them about the message of Christ, about God, about Creation. So, obviously my children will fall into that category. It&#39;s definitely not abuse to tell a child that they are loved, that God loves them and that he is love.

[jacovw]

OK, this is a rugby forum so...

If you play against a team, you tend to isolate and attack their strong points to diminish their effect... When I say what I&#39;m about to say I ask you to hear what i&#39;m saying and not what i&#39;m not saying!

It seems like we all agree that man is bad naturally, cos c&#39;mon guys it takes much more effort to be mother Theresa than to be a rucking, punching & eye gauging hooker! so it&#39;s easier to be a conduit for bad (i&#39;ll refrain from calling it Evil, you know people skills and all that!) than for good...

To the point. What is the thing us "conduits" of bad are attacking more than anything else? Christianity! And if faith is the Hugo Porta of the Christian Team then Love is the Gareth Edwards! Now bad, or Evil, or anybody else is trying to hammer the Gareth Edwards/Hugo Porta half back combo as we can clearly see in this thread. It&#39;s funny guys, this battle has been raging since the beginning (won&#39;t get into that), and i found the reference to Darwin being taught since the sixties laughable, how can we compare that to something as big as Christianity or Jesus, no matter what you believe about him, he inspired a faith whose book has hit #1 on the best seller list ever since it was first printed, obviously superior to the origin of species, the koran, lord of the rings and harry potter, the last for deserved of being named together! (sorry that last statement was probably taking a knock at Gareth Edwards, ie. not very loving!)

Give credit where credit is due, please!
I personally can&#39;t wait to play our beloved game in Heaven, yea it will be there, along with beautifull green pitches, no clouds!

[Meh]

Well, might as well give my two cents in this thread as I&#39;m Christian.

I don&#39;t particularly follow &#39;organise religion&#39; though. Churches are great for fellowship and meeting other Christians but aren&#39;t a basis for life imo - if you miss it who cares basically. My faith is a personal relationship with God if that makes sense and I don&#39;t feel the need to tell everybody about it all the time.

I think that&#39;s the best way to do things. It&#39;s also what annoys me about other fundie christians and also fundie Atheists that seem to enjoy telling me I&#39;m stupid for believing in a mythical being - they can sod it as far as I&#39;m concerned.

[Meh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Why dont you hear of Athiest suicide bombers?

Its bull****, the entire middle eastern conflict is based on the Jews "divine" rites as set out in Exodus. An event that archaeologists have pretty much proven never took place in the first place. Bosnia, Iraq (ongoing), Afghanistan (ongoing), Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Somalia, The Sudan, the Holocaust ................. f*** it, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Jihads through the ages. Remove religion and these people have little to fight over. The world would still have some form of violence, but a hell of a lot less. I&#39;d take that thank you very much.[/b]

This I always found a bit of a narrow argument.

The thing is, atheism isn&#39;t a strict organisation whereas religion too often is. People forget that in China and North Korea atheists persecution people for believing in religion in their millions. The difference is they do it in the name of an ideology, not a religion. Quite convenient that I think.

[O'Rothlain]

Nice to see a few other people putting there hands up on the pro-faith side. Nice analogies. The only reason I argue back so much is that the statements made are as bad as some of the statements made by ultra-right, fundamental Christians. It&#39;s like when Christians say that Darwin had a deathbed conversion to Christianity. He didn&#39;t. He was always a Deist, just like the participants in the Enlightenment and the founding fathers of America. Deists and Christians are two totally seperate things. My point being is that your attacks on Christianity are largely either misinformed or based on personal frustration. I gaurantee I&#39;ve had as many bad "church" experiences as the next guys and know how bad people who "profess with their mouths" can act. The church itself, because it is made of man, can be very, very flawed. It&#39;s not the church I stand up for but the faith and the principles. Having said that, organized religion still has it&#39;s place. As Meh said, it&#39;s a great place to meet fellow believers. "Iron sharpens Iron," and so sometimes, just like this forum, we come to meet with other ruggers, we must meet with other christians to discuss our faith, get spiritual help and coaching, and have a good time. The church has it&#39;s place, and always will. While it may be flawed, don&#39;t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[bristol-iain]

I&#39;ve sat and watched this thread develop without commenting on it.

I&#39;m an atheist, or more accuratley, I feel science has put forward a far more convincing arguement to creation. I find it impossible that a "divine spirit" made evreything we know and believ that the universe was created through a chemical reaction of some sort.

But I&#39;m not one of those who will discount peoples faiths as they have the right to belive what they want but there are times when you wonder if believing whet they do is actually the right thing to do.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bristol-iain @ Oct 22 2009, 09:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417568')</div>
I&#39;ve sat and watched this thread develop without commenting on it.

I&#39;m an atheist, or more accuratley, I feel science has put forward a far more convincing arguement to creation. I find it impossible that a "divine spirit" made evreything we know and believ that the universe was created through a chemical reaction of some sort.

But I&#39;m not one of those who will discount peoples faiths as they have the right to belive what they want but there are times when you wonder if believing whet they do is actually the right thing to do.[/b]
Does it not take Faith to believe in the "scientific explanation"? I find it impossible to believe that a random cosmic event started this all without purpose or plot. Yet, somehow you believe that. You have faith in that. I&#39;m not saying you&#39;re religious about it, but it takes a leap to believe it. Maybe it takes less faith to believe what you believe. But it&#39;s not like we, the religious few, don&#39;t sometimes struggle with believing. This is where our faith kicks in.

[bristol-iain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 22 2009, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417575')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bristol-iain @ Oct 22 2009, 09:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417568')
I&#39;ve sat and watched this thread develop without commenting on it.

I&#39;m an atheist, or more accuratley, I feel science has put forward a far more convincing arguement to creation. I find it impossible that a "divine spirit" made evreything we know and believ that the universe was created through a chemical reaction of some sort.

But I&#39;m not one of those who will discount peoples faiths as they have the right to belive what they want but there are times when you wonder if believing whet they do is actually the right thing to do.[/b]
Does it not take Faith to believe in the "scientific explanation"? I find it impossible to believe that a random cosmic event started this all without purpose or plot. Yet, somehow you believe that. You have faith in that. I&#39;m not saying you&#39;re religious about it, but it takes a leap to believe it. Maybe it takes less faith to believe what you believe. But it&#39;s not like we, the religious few, don&#39;t sometimes struggle with believing. This is where our faith kicks in.
[/b][/quote]

I wouldnt say I had faith in the Big Bang, I just accept its the more plausible outcome and get on with life.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bristol-iain @ Oct 22 2009, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417576')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 22 2009, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417575')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bristol-iain @ Oct 22 2009, 09:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417568')
I&#39;ve sat and watched this thread develop without commenting on it.

I&#39;m an atheist, or more accuratley, I feel science has put forward a far more convincing arguement to creation. I find it impossible that a "divine spirit" made evreything we know and believ that the universe was created through a chemical reaction of some sort.

But I&#39;m not one of those who will discount peoples faiths as they have the right to belive what they want but there are times when you wonder if believing whet they do is actually the right thing to do.[/b]
Does it not take Faith to believe in the "scientific explanation"? I find it impossible to believe that a random cosmic event started this all without purpose or plot. Yet, somehow you believe that. You have faith in that. I&#39;m not saying you&#39;re religious about it, but it takes a leap to believe it. Maybe it takes less faith to believe what you believe. But it&#39;s not like we, the religious few, don&#39;t sometimes struggle with believing. This is where our faith kicks in.
[/b][/quote]

I wouldnt say I had faith in the Big Bang, I just accept its the more plausible outcome and get on with life.
[/b][/quote]
I think your making faith into a much bigger thing than it is, because by definition faith is simply having confidence in something. You have a sense of confidence, or at least comfortability with the idea of the big bang, which allows you to get on with life.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 22 2009, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417578')</div>
I think your making faith into a much bigger thing than it is, because by definition faith is simply having confidence in something.[/b]
Did you not just talk about "absolute truths" as a result of revealed learning? That sounds like a lot more then just confidence. You are absolutely sure in your beliefs, you&#39;ve said it quite frequently. There is a massive difference between that and an Athiests acceptance of the more plausable.

And the attacks are not misinformed, certainly not based on personal frustration, and to be honest they aren’t all on Christianity. I suppose rugby still has to have an impact on the Muslim world.

My original post was mainly looking at the spread of Islam (Christian figures are high, but falling in the US) around the world, and due to the fact that its inherently a violent religion, should we begin to look at it as the threat it could offer? Are we walking towards an East (thems be the Muslims) vs. West (that be the Christians) religious confrontation.

You were the one who jumped in with little doozies like “Creationism and Evolution are both theories of how the earth was made, and there is nothing more scientific about Evolutionist Big Bang than there is Creationist...uhm...Creation”. and you suggested we just drop it?

I can’t help but think that is simply delusional and it’s hard not to be frustrated by such statements. In fact I’m still not sure if your just winding me up as it sounds like something I would say in the Player of 2009 thread.

One of the pre-requisites for anything to be accepted as a “theory” is that it can be tested. Natural Selection can and has been tested (successfully). The big bang is THE big mystery but they are at least still trying to crack it (CERN). A lot of the science around the creation of the planets, stars etc has already been established, tested and is accepted.

The idea of creationism cannot be tested. In order to test this idea you need to suspend the laws of physics (speed of light and all that nonsense), acknowledge that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side (and forget about carbon dating, and laired sediment as a form of dating, that’s flawed), accept the genealogy back to Adam as set out in the bible, believe the great flood actually happened, accept that the bible is the word of god, acknowledge that all other religions (1000’s of em) have been wrong and so close to 100% of the historic population, and close to ¾ of the current of the earth are doomed to burn in hell, accept that the rest of the universe is just a nice decoration for us to look at (and its empty), that god intentionally allowed 99% of the earth animal special to become extinct (some design that).

“You can attack the misuse of religion all day long but don&#39;t attack the religion itself.” I don’t see the difference, but either way if religion remains an invasive presence in today’s society it deserved to be attacked and ridiculed. Those that enable the religion, be they moderate or fanatical, deserve the same treatment.

[dullonien]

All well and good Logorrhea. However you&#39;ve also got to realise that just about every population throughout history has believed and worshiped in something. For the first time we know of, people have stopped believing in any any kind of religion or &#39;divine being&#39;. This has obviously come about due to scientific discoveries that have helped to explain some of the mysteries of the universe. However, there are still a huge amount of mysteries left unexplained (hell we don&#39;t even know what lurks in the deepest depths of our own oceans). The &#39;Big Bang&#39; is still a theory that&#39;s remained largely unproven (although it&#39;s accepted that the universe is expanding, and that rate of expansion is slowing), but still unproven non the less.

You have got to understand, that religion is a natural thing for many people. It answers the biggest question there is, &#39;what is the purpose of life?&#39;. To many, living without a purpse isn&#39;t exactly the nicest of thoughts. To others, like you or me, it&#39;s fine.

You say it&#39;s &#39;your right&#39; to ridicule others due to their beliefs, but that&#39;s just not on imo. You can question their reasons if you wish, but O&#39;Roth has given you his reasons. I&#39;m sure he&#39;s well aware of these inconsistencies, but still believes in his religion. I have no problem with that, why do you? It&#39;s his life to lead, being a good Christian is just about the best way he can lead his life (as is being a good Jew, Muslim, Athiest etc.). If he then wishes to pass on his beliefs to his children, again what&#39;s the problem?

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Oct 22 2009, 01:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417469')</div>
I just think that religion was created to nullify the fear of death. It&#39;s used as a reason to live. Someone dies, and everybody says that "we will see you soon" and "He is with God now" etc etc. It just strikes me as a certain closure people need. If that makes their lives better, then that&#39;s ok.

I don&#39;t know what God is, but i know what he is not. He is not what we say he is, because every perception of God, was created by man. Every religion sees God the way they would like him to be. Certain religion&#39;s cause people to do good unto others, as their beliefs tell them to. Others kill in the name of God, as their laws and beliefs are different.

What i can say, is that most people are scared of 2 things. One, is the end. Death. Nothingness. The other, as an eternity of endless suffering, screaming and burning. I have a lot of mates who preach to me with a beer in one hand, a cigarette in the other, and then afterwards go home with some skank and bang her.

Another thing i have noticed is at church. Every single session i have ever been to, seems to have one message stated over and over again. Basically, that Jesus died for every sin you will ever commit. We are all sinners, but He gave his life, etc etc. It&#39;s as if everyone gets their sigh of relief every week, as they are continually reminded that their sins have been cleansed by Jesus, and all they need to do is believe and ask for forgiveness. It gives people closure, and that&#39;s probably exactly what these people need to hear.

I just think that if there is a God, he has long left this world, and we are on our own. But that&#39;s just me.[/b]
Best post on the thread. Bit bleak in the end - must be influenced by Afrikaaner "apocalypse now" fears about the coming ANC dictatorship! Or something personal?

People keep banging on about cartoon notions - heaven, hell, big bang, theory of evolution, religion causes wars etc.

It&#39;s fairly clear - christianity tries to reconcile reason with faith. Take the fear of death, add a dose of greek philosophy to show that violence is evil, encourage respect for the dead - the people who made us what we are - cherish the young, and take inspiration from the good and true.

Can&#39;t live better than that.

[Steve-o]

Interesting comment about people believing less in religion nowdays than ever before. IMO This is mainly due the information age and scientific enlightenment. People for centuries have used religion as a spot gap for things they don&#39;t understand.

The Greeks are a classic example, they had sea gods and so on. Basically a god for everything in life that&#39;s uncontrollable. Nowdays we can predict weather patterns to predict ocean weather systems, where in ancient times it would seem spontaneous. People didn&#39;t know about high & low pressure systems and the science behind weather systems, so they&#39;d use a god as a stop gap. It&#39;s off their minds, and they&#39;d feel a sense of enlightenment. They now "know" why this & that happens. As you can imagine this would be a huge relief on one&#39;s conscious. Please the gods (sacrifice, temples, pray) and feel like you are doing your bit in controlling the uncontrollable.

Zeus in Greek mythology is the &#39;god of the sky and thunder&#39;, on the other side of the world in total isolation, Polynesians cultures had a god of thunder called "Haikili". Coincidence? I think not!

Perhaps these religions, like 1000&#39;s of others, didn&#39;t gain popularity because they got found out eventually. These types of religions and beliefs were to precise IMO. Christianity and Islam seem to have captured more peoples fascination. Or it hits the right chords of insecurity and vulnerability in the human psyche. Do good and go to a place of euphoria (highest form pleasure) or do bad and go to a place of pain (highest form of torture/discomfort).
It also helps that Middle East and European countries were powerful during certain periods of time. It&#39;s no surprise that there are alot of Christians on the western side of Africa and more Islamic followers on the eastern side. Countries like India still have their &#39;indigenous religions&#39; as their major religions due to being isolated more to some extent. Religion is like a culture you inherit from society and your reference group (family, friends).

I know, very trivial look on religion, but if you can look at it detached and in an abstract way it reveals a very interesting part of human psychology.

EDIT: PS I&#39;m not doing the &#39;I&#39;m right & you wrong&#39; thing here. I&#39;m just very secure in my view of religion as a culture/human psychology, that&#39;s why I can speak about it like a trivial subject.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 22 2009, 11:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417585')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 22 2009, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417578')
I think your making faith into a much bigger thing than it is, because by definition faith is simply having confidence in something.[/b]
Did you not just talk about "absolute truths" as a result of revealed learning? That sounds like a lot more then just confidence. You are absolutely sure in your beliefs, you&#39;ve said it quite frequently. There is a massive difference between that and an Athiests acceptance of the more plausable.

And the attacks are not misinformed, certainly not based on personal frustration, and to be honest they aren’t all on Christianity. I suppose rugby still has to have an impact on the Muslim world.

My original post was mainly looking at the spread of Islam (Christian figures are high, but falling in the US) around the world, and due to the fact that its inherently a violent religion, should we begin to look at it as the threat it could offer? Are we walking towards an East (thems be the Muslims) vs. West (that be the Christians) religious confrontation.

You were the one who jumped in with little doozies like “Creationism and Evolution are both theories of how the earth was made, and there is nothing more scientific about Evolutionist Big Bang than there is Creationist...uhm...Creation”. and you suggested we just drop it?

I can’t help but think that is simply delusional and it’s hard not to be frustrated by such statements. In fact I’m still not sure if your just winding me up as it sounds like something I would say in the Player of 2009 thread.

One of the pre-requisites for anything to be accepted as a “theory” is that it can be tested. Natural Selection can and has been tested (successfully). The big bang is THE big mystery but they are at least still trying to crack it (CERN). A lot of the science around the creation of the planets, stars etc has already been established, tested and is accepted.

The idea of creationism cannot be tested. In order to test this idea you need to suspend the laws of physics (speed of light and all that nonsense), acknowledge that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side (and forget about carbon dating, and laired sediment as a form of dating, that’s flawed), accept the genealogy back to Adam as set out in the bible, believe the great flood actually happened, accept that the bible is the word of god, acknowledge that all other religions (1000’s of em) have been wrong and so close to 100% of the historic population, and close to ¾ of the current of the earth are doomed to burn in hell, accept that the rest of the universe is just a nice decoration for us to look at (and its empty), that god intentionally allowed 99% of the earth animal special to become extinct (some design that).

“You can attack the misuse of religion all day long but don&#39;t attack the religion itself.” I don’t see the difference, but either way if religion remains an invasive presence in today’s society it deserved to be attacked and ridiculed. Those that enable the religion, be they moderate or fanatical, deserve the same treatment.
[/b][/quote]
So many random things to respond to...where to start?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
god intentionally allowed 99% of the earth animal special to become extinct (some design that)[/b]
If we are going on about God, then let&#39;s look at our designed role. According to the Abrahamic faiths mankind was created as the gaurdians keepers of earth and all the creation within. Therefore we&#39;ve done a pretty ****e job. We&#39;ve been given, again, if we&#39;re talking as if there is a God, a bounty for resources and it&#39;s our job to keep the balance. But, no, we&#39;re greedy and selfish and use everything up and waste and destroy. It&#39;s now liberals who&#39;ve taken up the eco-cause, but in reality it should&#39;ve been all of our responsibility and especially the religious. We&#39;ve all failed.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Did you not just talk about "absolute truths" as a result of revealed learning?[/b]
No, I just said I believe in absolute truth. Meaning that there are some absolutes in the world/universe. Right, wrong, etc... These absolutes are what turn me to faith in things unproven. Because of absolutes, I know that there is some design to this universe. The universe is not chaos, it&#39;s balance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
One of the pre-requisites for anything to be accepted as a “theory” is that it can be tested. Natural Selection can and has been tested[/b]
I don&#39;t question natural selection. I said that the big bang and creation are both theories. I&#39;ve even referenced scientists that believe in both God and Evolution.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
My original post was mainly looking at the spread of Islam (Christian figures are high, but falling in the US) around the world, and due to the fact that its inherently a violent religion, should we begin to look at it as the threat it could offer? Are we walking towards an East (thems be the Muslims) vs. West (that be the Christians) religious confrontation.[/b]
When you look at my comments I&#39;m trying to make them as inclusive as possible. That meaning I&#39;m making comments about the Abrahamic Faiths in general (most of the time) and not my personal beliefs. The Abrahamic Faiths are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These three, which share the same fundamental core are the world-wide dominant faiths. The battle between the three is because they are so closely related and all make large absolute statements. I&#39;m not going to get into that whole debate, because the truth about these 3 is they have more in common than they have in difference. Believing in the Flood is not that hard. Whether you believe it to be truly world wide, or at least regionally wide enough to encompass most of the world that had written language (or strong oral histories), every culture points to a flood legend. Something chatostophic happened, and there is physical proof of such a disaster in the regions described in major religions. Did Noah have an Arc with the animals by two-sies, two-sies? I don&#39;t know for certain, but I have faith in the Bible to believe it. There is a difference between what I&#39;ll comment on absolutely and what I will say is either my personal belief or something I have faith in. All of christianity/islam, judaism isn&#39;t just an unprovable myth. There is a lot of reality and truth there from a historical basis at least. It is the supernatural claims where one must leap to faith. I&#39;m not asking you to do it.
Also, I don&#39;t have figures, but Christianity is experiencing a huge boom in parts of Asia. Korea for example.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Since the introduction of Catholicism in 1784, followed by the arrival of Protestant missionaries in 1884, Christianity has proceeded to become--after Buddhism--the largest religion in the country. Today about one third of South Korea&#39;s 45 million people are Christian--11 million Protestants and 3 million Roman Catholics.
Since the early 1960s, when South Korea&#39;s Christians scarcely topped the one million mark, the number of Christians, particularly Protestants, has increased faster than in any other country, doubling every decade. By 1994, moreover, there were over 35,000 churches and 50,000 pastors, making the South Korean church one of the most vital and dynamic in the world.
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Religion/C...hristianity.htm (http://www.tparents.org/Library/Religion/Cta/Korean-Christianity.htm)[/b]

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dullonien @ Oct 22 2009, 06:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417592')</div>
You have got to understand, that religion is a natural thing for many people.[/b]
There are actually theories that expand this a little more and say that it could be built into our genes as a possible aid to the survival of the race. I havent a clue, but it doesnt make it right.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dullonien @ Oct 22 2009, 06:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417592')</div>
I&#39;m sure he&#39;s well aware of these inconsistencies, but still believes in his religion. I have no problem with that, why do you?[/b]
I answered this one already. As long as religion, any religion, remains an invasive presence in today’s society it deserved to be attacked and ridiculed. Those that enable the religion, be they moderate or fanatical, deserve the same treatment, okay maybe the shouldnt be ridiculed but that just kinda happens doesnt it.

If they stay in their churches and keep it to themselves thats grand, but if they cry foul and force our politicians to legislate based on their beliefs (gay marraige, blasphemy, stem cell research, divorce, abortion) then it impacts on me. Thats why I have a problem. As long as they question perfectly good science with a campaign of missinformation (10,000 years me arse) and their own brand of pseudoscience then I have a problem. As long as they are given positions of power, abuse that power (and those they are meant to care for) then try to hide it, deny it when caught, and then just ignore that same abuse, then I have a problem.

You seem to believe that religion is some kind of benign social club. Its far more invasive then that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dullonien @ Oct 22 2009, 06:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417592')</div>
It&#39;s his life to lead, being a good Christian is just about the best way he can lead his life (as is being a good Jew, Muslim, Athiest etc.). If he then wishes to pass on his beliefs to his children, again what&#39;s the problem?[/b]

Kids, these are just children remember, are told today that they can worship God (as their parents, their grandparents, their friends, their parents, their grandparents do (no pressure)) or face an eternity in hell or death. From the moment the child accepts (as if they had a choice) its just a matter of reinforcing the indoctrination from a young age. Those kids themselves dont have a chance or a choice, they just accept it. Why not let the Kid alone until they are 18, and let them make their own mind up? We know why.

The thing I find strange is that I base my arguements on facts, Christians and Muslims base their arguements on the contents of a book written 1000 - 1500 years ago (depending on the book) but I have to take it easy? Why is it taboo to question someones beliefs? Why is it taboo to question religions place in the world?

I dont know you roth but you have always seemed a decent bloke. I&#39;m not questioning that, or your motive with his kids. I&#39;m sure you mean well. I&#39;m questioning your religion and if you find that offense well ....... I&#39;m sorry you find it offensive but I dont believe I&#39;m saying anything that is offensive.

If organised religion stayed out of the mainsteam I&#39;d probably think it was great. It doesnt though.

[dullonien]

I can agree with you on many accounts there Logorrhea. Many religions have become &#39;outdated&#39; in many of their views. Afterall, alot of the Bible was written by normal people, who expressed their views. I&#39;m not attempting to say I know the Bible, I&#39;ve been taught small parts of it, most of which I&#39;ve forgotten, but the pieces I&#39;m talking about here are the letters to the corinthian&#39;s (I believe) etc. &#39; A man should not lie with another man the way he does with his wife&#39; etc. etc. Who were these people to write such things, and were they told to do so by God? They do still have a huge impact on the way people can live their lives. Luckily here in Britain, a Gay couple can be &#39;united&#39; (not married, as that&#39;s a religious ceremony), and have the same rights as hetorosexual married couples. However that isn&#39;t the case in most other countries, including the majority of the USA (I believe). I&#39;ve used this issue as an example, there are many more as Logorrhea has pointed out. (Edit: sorry if I&#39;ve got some of this wrong.)

This is where the laws and legislations of coutries need to evolve, and accept there are many different kinds of religions and non believers living within it&#39;s borders.

I feel Blasphemy is a slightly different point you brought up. I find myself using God&#39;s name in vain without really realising it. Unfortunately it&#39;s become commonplace to do so, it&#39;s even allowed on tv before the watershed nowerdays. It&#39;s something I wish I didn&#39;t do, because I feel I&#39;m being disrespectfull. Although I may not believe in God, I still respect others beliefs. There&#39;s no real need to use blasphemy, there are other swear words available to be used, but I find myself doing it anyway.

Back to the children thing again. I understand what you&#39;re saying Logorrhea, but at the same time it makes absolutely no sense. People are religious because they believe in that religion, and what it tells them. If they trully believe that they will go to hell (although I&#39;m pretty sure it&#39;s just Catholics that really believe in hell) if they don&#39;t follow their religion, by not teaching their offspring, they aren&#39;t doing everything they can to protect them. Is it really that hard to see that? Didn&#39;t the Simpson&#39;s have an episode that covered this?

[gingergenius]

O Roth, I can&#39;t see how you can blame animal extinction on mankind &#39;doing a ****e job&#39; when millions of species became extinct before Man even existed.

Nor can I see how you can even say " Did Noah have an Arc with the animals by two-sies, two-sies? I don&#39;t know for certain"... Really, the Bible may have a lot of useful historical evidence, but that is no more believeable than the stories of Gog & Magog, Cuchulain, Odin, Manco Capac, Herakles and just about any other ancient tale of Gods, heroes and monsters. Truly wonderful literature, and believe me I have about 20 books on all sorts of myths and legends and fairytales within reach, but you have to be crazy to believe there was any chance it might have actually happened.

Of course, you could go the William Blake way (a devoutly religious man) and say that God existed, but inside his own imagination, for this was the most powerful force in the universe. He was along the right lines... all deities are constructions of the human imagination, where among &#39;believers&#39; they can remain as a comfort and a reason for being. Heaven, hell, Asgard and every other mythical world all exist within an infinite universe between our ears.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 22 2009, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417604')</div>
Interesting comment about people believing less in religion nowdays than ever before. IMO This is mainly due the information age and scientific enlightenment. People for centuries have used religion as a spot gap for things they don&#39;t understand.

The Greeks are a classic example, they had sea gods and so on. Basically a god for everything in life that&#39;s uncontrollable. Nowdays we can predict weather patterns to predict ocean weather systems, where in ancient times it would seem spontaneous. People didn&#39;t know about high & low pressure systems and the science behind weather systems, so they&#39;d use a god as a stop gap. It&#39;s off their minds, and they&#39;d feel a sense of enlightenment. They now "know" why this & that happens. As you can imagine this would be a huge relief on one&#39;s conscious. Please the gods (sacrifice, temples, pray) and feel like you are doing your bit in controlling the uncontrollable.

Zeus in Greek mythology is the &#39;god of the sky and thunder&#39;, on the other side of the world in total isolation, Polynesians cultures had a god of thunder called "Haikili". Coincidence? I think not!

Perhaps these religions, like 1000&#39;s of others, didn&#39;t gain popularity because they got found out eventually. These types of religions and beliefs were to precise IMO. Christianity and Islam seem to have captured more peoples fascination. Or it hits the right chords of insecurity and vulnerability in the human psyche. Do good and go to a place of euphoria (highest form pleasure) or do bad and go to a place of pain (highest form of torture/discomfort).
It also helps that Middle East and European countries were powerful during certain periods of time. It&#39;s no surprise that there are alot of Christians on the western side of Africa and more Islamic followers on the eastern side. Countries like India still have their &#39;indigenous religions&#39; as their major religions due to being isolated more to some extent. Religion is like a culture you inherit from society and your reference group (family, friends).

I know, very trivial look on religion, but if you can look at it detached and in an abstract way it reveals a very interesting part of human psychology.

EDIT: PS I&#39;m not doing the &#39;I&#39;m right & you wrong&#39; thing here. I&#39;m just very secure in my view of religion as a culture/human psychology, that&#39;s why I can speak about it like a trivial subject.[/b]

Okay Stop the Bus Boys!
I agree with one thing: it&#39;s our modern scientific world view that&#39;s stopping the spread of Christianity! But if our Modern Scientific way of thinking was so great then let&#39;s compare the Christian Age of Science to the Modern Age of Science. When the West was predominately Christian (in their world view) we had the inventions of cars, light bulbs, electricity, and a endless list of things that shaped and affect our lives today. Since the West&#39;s predominately Atheist world view we&#39;ve had the inventions of discussion threads on which is better!

P.S. if I&#39;m wrong about all this Christianity stuff, then I&#39;ve lived a happy life with a good wife and have brought up my children in a decent self/others respecting way and still have nothing to fear when i die! If I&#39;m right, all the above is still true for me, but for those who don&#39;t agree, you might have some trouble... just something to ponder, you know use it, don&#39;t use it...

[jacovw]

I just want to say something about the children:

In the Church where I became a Christian, most of the children dance and worship and "try" (trust me they don&#39;t always get it right) to be good, and pray and sometimes even tell their parents "mom, dad what you&#39;re doing is hurting Jesus heart!" (it&#39;s very sweet to see by the way), all this long before they are even taught that there is a hell!!

I can Vouch that these children turn to a loving God because they see his love in their Parents lives and when they find out about Hell it breaks their hearts, as it does God&#39;s. Guys God is Love and he doesn&#39;t throw people in Hell they choose it, if all you ever ask for here on Earth is for God to leave you alone he will eventually do that! Now if He is truly God then let&#39;s not be arrogant and think he owes us a mile long explanation, he owes us nothing but we owe him our lives because the punishment for sin is death and i can tell you now he has given me a million pardons for the death sentence already.

It&#39;s not just the catholics, any true Christian knows that there is a choice between unlimited access to God&#39;s presence forever or No Access at all, that is Hell the complete removal of all that is good... no demons torturing you and no devil reigning supreme they get what you get in there, a place void of God...

That&#39;s a little worse than the bottom of a 5th Team Ruck I&#39;ll have you know!

[Bull]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 04:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417627')</div>
P.S. if I&#39;m wrong about all this Christianity stuff, then I&#39;ve lived a happy life with a good wife and have brought up my children in a decent self/others respecting way and still have nothing to fear when i die! If I&#39;m right, all the above is still true for me, but for those who don&#39;t agree, you might have some trouble... just something to ponder, you know use it, don&#39;t use it...[/b]

I&#39;ve heard a very good saying before;*

I&#39;d Rather live my life as if there&#39;s God, and die to find out there isn&#39;t, than to live my life as if there isn&#39;t and die to find out there is.

[Jer1cho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bull @ Oct 23 2009, 07:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417636')</div>
I&#39;d Rather live my life as if there&#39;s God, and die to find out there isn&#39;t, than to live my life as if there isn&#39;t and die to find out there is.[/b]

See, now this is exactly the point i am getting at. It&#39;s fear that drives more than half of this world to believe in whatever they do. Not, because they are striving to live eternity in a Utopia, or Heaven, but rather because they don&#39;t want to be stuck in Hell for all of eternity.

I just don&#39;t know. I honestly don&#39;t. Maybe I&#39;m just not strong enough to use something like &#39;faith&#39; to force myself into believing something that i just can&#39;t.

I keep asking myself, how was God &#39;just there&#39;? He was just there, from the beginning. If that&#39;s the case, then why can&#39;t everything that exists &#39;just be there&#39;? If every single thing in existence needed something in order for it to be created, how does that rule not apply to God? Because he is &#39;all-mighty and glorious&#39; is usually the response i get. Even the whole Noah&#39;s ark thing. I also ask, how was that even possible? Then everyone says, God was all-mighty. Seems a little on the ******** side to me.

I was brought up in a home, where both of my parents said that you can go through life, and make the decision on your own. They would not force anything on me, and would let me decide on my own what i would like to believe. I have tried. I really have. When i am at church, everyone has there hands in the air, worshipping in song, and all i can think is, what am i missing? My fiance is very religious, and wants me to be baptized before we get married. I don&#39;t want to do it, because it&#39;s not my decision. All it has ever done in our relationships is cause arguments. I don&#39;t like religion.

@ Shtove:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Best post on the thread. Bit bleak in the end - must be influenced by Afrikaaner "apocalypse now" fears about the coming ANC dictatorship! Or something personal?[/b]

Nah, it&#39;s not that. It&#39;s just that, every single day i sit in my car, in the traffic, with all the other thousands of people. We go to work, we waste our day, get home, eat and sleep. We get paid, pay our taxes, buy our cars, and get stuck in a never-ending cycle. If we were put on this Earth for a purpose, then it&#39;s not what is happening. I don&#39;t think we were ever intended to be living our lives the way we are. It just seems so pointless.

Also, i have seen many, many horrible things in my life. Here in South Africa, the horrible crime stories never end. I was reading about a family who were moving to Australia, but had to stay here for a couple more weeks to get their visa&#39;s and things in order. Some guys broke into their house, burnt their faces with irons, and raped the woman in front of her husband and kids. They didn&#39;t steal a thing.

Why did that have to happen? Why were those people even born if &#39;God creates everybody&#39;? It just seems to me that we are on our own. I know that there are wonderful things in this world as well, and it&#39;s not all gloom and doom, but i can&#39;t help but feel that humanity is sinking deeper and deeper into it&#39;s own mess. :(

[jacovw]

Yea it&#39;s cruel it&#39;s mean and your point is exactly right, we&#39;re sinking deeper into our own mess! but that&#39;s the point it&#39;s our mess! You see Pieter de Villiers didn&#39;t have to stick with Jake White&#39;s Team, but he did and the results are proving themselves at the moment! In the same way God build this awesome world then put us in charge, to govern and run it... and we messed it up! He gave us the ability to fix it too but unless everybody puts their heads together that&#39;s never gonna happen. That is the only hope we have that one day he will come and put it all right, another choice, live with no hope or with that hope. That&#39;s why God tells us to trust in him, because in the end only he will stay true and trustworthy.

If you feel like life is a waste that&#39;s because it is... no offense just hear me out. I felt like my life was a waste while i was getting paid R16000-00 a month, no purpose, no hope! then I lost my job turned to the church in desperation (always takes that doesn&#39;t it?). All i had was R7-00 Rand and a R700-00 speeding fine, so i put that seven into the collection bags and kinda prayed seriously for the first time "hey help me out a bit wont You?". That Monday I get a phone call "Alright you haven&#39;t paid your fine we&#39;re sending it to the courts!" (During KZN&#39;s Zero-tolerance time!). Five minutes later I get another call from the same guy he pipes up "Okay your fine got stuck in the Fax machine, ummm, just don&#39;t do it again alright!"

Neither God nor I will promise anyone else the same thing, and I have seen only one or two bigger "coincidences-linked-to-prayer" since then (nine years), but when I&#39;ve been in a real jam things would usually work itself out and at this stage i can truly say i&#39;m living with purpose! Worshiping God is a privilege not a purpose but he places desires in our heart and when you start following those desires we start living on purpose. Now you don&#39;t have to be a Christian to fulfill that: so quit your job and follow your dreams! It sounds crazy but it&#39;s worth it. I&#39;m teaching and studying in China at the moment, with the ideal of reaching my dreams to be a Teacher and a Rugby Coach.

It&#39;s easy when you try!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 03:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417627')</div>
P.S. if I&#39;m wrong about all this Christianity stuff, then I&#39;ve lived a happy life with a good wife and have brought up my children in a decent self/others respecting way and still have nothing to fear when i die! If I&#39;m right, all the above is still true for me, but for those who don&#39;t agree, you might have some trouble... just something to ponder, you know use it, don&#39;t use it...[/b]
Thats Pascels wager (or Parcels I cant remember). He, as a scientist deduced that it was a better bet to believe than not believe as you have a greater chance of getting a return on the bet. If there is a god great your in, if not you lose nothing.

The standard answer to that is that any omnipotent (he&#39;s all singing and all dancing isnt he) god would identify that charade straight away and ............... bang .............. down to hell with you ye lying sod!

Faith by its very nature is not something you can just choose though is it? You have to be convinced first. Educated adults are an absolute bitch to convince (as Faith is effectively admitting you believe in something you know cant be true) so the churches focuses on children and the less well educated. Either way, they attack those that simply dont know any better.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 05:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417635')</div>
Guys God is Love[/b]
Have you read the old testiment?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 03:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417627')</div>
But if our Modern Scientific way of thinking was so great then let&#39;s compare the Christian Age of Science to the Modern Age of Science.[/b]
Ahhh crap, and there I was thinking that the Athiests who invented most of this stuff should have taken the credit. Your right though it was all down to christian thinking. Alternatively, you could ask where we would be now if the church hadnt gone out of its way to burn all the independnt thinkers centuries before.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 11:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417641')</div>
and we messed it up! He gave us the ability to fix it[/b]
But we werent even here. So not only do I have to deal with the guilt associated with god killing his own son for me (he shouldnt have bothered) but now its my fault all those millions of other species are extinct, even when the human race wasnt here?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 11:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417641')</div>
but when I&#39;ve been in a real jam things would usually work itself out[/b]
Why did god help you out with your fine but babies still get bone cancer?

[Meh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bull @ Oct 23 2009, 06:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417636')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 04:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417627')
P.S. if I&#39;m wrong about all this Christianity stuff, then I&#39;ve lived a happy life with a good wife and have brought up my children in a decent self/others respecting way and still have nothing to fear when i die! If I&#39;m right, all the above is still true for me, but for those who don&#39;t agree, you might have some trouble... just something to ponder, you know use it, don&#39;t use it...[/b]

I&#39;ve heard a very good saying before;*

I&#39;d Rather live my life as if there&#39;s God, and die to find out there isn&#39;t, than to live my life as if there isn&#39;t and die to find out there is.
[/b][/quote]

Pascal&#39;s Wager?

It is fairly good logic actually.


Also, I can&#39;t add much more to what O&#39;Rothlain has said - he&#39;s explained it pretty well. But basically I find that science works out the how, my Christian belief works out the why. They&#39;re two different camps as far as I&#39;m concerned. Some people even think Evolution and Christian faith are compatible. My belief in God is based mainly on experiences I&#39;ve had in my life. Scientific proof isn&#39;t going to nullify that really, especially when science is so incomplete.

Certainly interesting stuff though.

[Meh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
The standard answer to that is that any omnipotent (he&#39;s all singing and all dancing isnt he) god would identify that charade straight away and ............... bang .............. down to hell with you ye lying sod![/b]

There&#39;s a difference between the motive and actual belief though - some people might see the logic in believing in God and then research or look into the possibility. Which is different to just saying - Oh, if God exists I&#39;m alright, I&#39;ll believe then.

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 12:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417641')</div>
That Monday I get a phone call "Alright you haven&#39;t paid your fine we&#39;re sending it to the courts!" (During KZN&#39;s Zero-tolerance time!). Five minutes later I get another call from the same guy he pipes up "Okay your fine got stuck in the Fax machine, ummm, just don&#39;t do it again alright!"

Neither God nor I will promise anyone else the same thing, and I have seen only one or two bigger "coincidences-linked-to-prayer" since then (nine years), but when I&#39;ve been in a real jam things would usually work itself out and at this stage i can truly say i&#39;m living with purpose![/b]

Truly a miracle! I bet the tit who couldn&#39;t send a fax was an angel.
... So why doesn&#39;t "god" heal amputees and stop babies in central Africa from dying of hunger? Obviously your speeding fine, due to lawlessness, has a higher priority than human life.
Like I said before, our belief systems skew our reality to what we think is happening.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 04:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417627')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 22 2009, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417604')
Interesting comment about people believing less in religion nowdays than ever before. IMO This is mainly due the information age and scientific enlightenment. People for centuries have used religion as a spot gap for things they don&#39;t understand.

The Greeks are a classic example, they had sea gods and so on. Basically a god for everything in life that&#39;s uncontrollable. Nowdays we can predict weather patterns to predict ocean weather systems, where in ancient times it would seem spontaneous. People didn&#39;t know about high & low pressure systems and the science behind weather systems, so they&#39;d use a god as a stop gap. It&#39;s off their minds, and they&#39;d feel a sense of enlightenment. They now "know" why this & that happens. As you can imagine this would be a huge relief on one&#39;s conscious. Please the gods (sacrifice, temples, pray) and feel like you are doing your bit in controlling the uncontrollable.

Zeus in Greek mythology is the &#39;god of the sky and thunder&#39;, on the other side of the world in total isolation, Polynesians cultures had a god of thunder called "Haikili". Coincidence? I think not!

Perhaps these religions, like 1000&#39;s of others, didn&#39;t gain popularity because they got found out eventually. These types of religions and beliefs were to precise IMO. Christianity and Islam seem to have captured more peoples fascination. Or it hits the right chords of insecurity and vulnerability in the human psyche. Do good and go to a place of euphoria (highest form pleasure) or do bad and go to a place of pain (highest form of torture/discomfort).
It also helps that Middle East and European countries were powerful during certain periods of time. It&#39;s no surprise that there are alot of Christians on the western side of Africa and more Islamic followers on the eastern side. Countries like India still have their &#39;indigenous religions&#39; as their major religions due to being isolated more to some extent. Religion is like a culture you inherit from society and your reference group (family, friends).

I know, very trivial look on religion, but if you can look at it detached and in an abstract way it reveals a very interesting part of human psychology.

EDIT: PS I&#39;m not doing the &#39;I&#39;m right & you wrong&#39; thing here. I&#39;m just very secure in my view of religion as a culture/human psychology, that&#39;s why I can speak about it like a trivial subject.[/b]

Okay Stop the Bus Boys!
I agree with one thing: it&#39;s our modern scientific world view that&#39;s stopping the spread of Christianity! But if our Modern Scientific way of thinking was so great then let&#39;s compare the Christian Age of Science to the Modern Age of Science. When the West was predominately Christian (in their world view) we had the inventions of cars, light bulbs, electricity, and a endless list of things that shaped and affect our lives today. Since the West&#39;s predominately Atheist world view we&#39;ve had the inventions of discussion threads on which is better!

P.S. if I&#39;m wrong about all this Christianity stuff, then I&#39;ve lived a happy life with a good wife and have brought up my children in a decent self/others respecting way and still have nothing to fear when i die! If I&#39;m right, all the above is still true for me, but for those who don&#39;t agree, you might have some trouble... just something to ponder, you know use it, don&#39;t use it...
[/b][/quote]

It had to slip out eventually. Religion is a form of tribalism as indicated in the bolded part.

This attitude of, "Yeah you can have your opinions but you still gonna burn in hell", is common amongst intolerable religions such as Christianity.

Before I say anything further keep these 2 verses in mind:

[i]Exodus 21:20

---

So yes very loving god indeed.
I bet the Sunday school teachers will leave those out though! Rather stick with the dude who lived in a giant fish for few days and the big boat with all the animals on it.

As a god obeying man you MUST obey these commandants of god, you can&#39;t sit on the fence. As indicated by Revelation 3:16: "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth."

So you gonna get your most favouritist stone in &#39;teh whole wide worldz&#39; ready for when a unruly teenage in your town gets out of hand? Oh wait that&#39;s a contradiction. Something about &#39;you who have not sinned cast the first stone&#39;. Very convient contradiction. But I guess the unemployed can kill the people at Spar for working on a Sunday.

Resource used for verses:
http://www.yourgodisimaginary.com/index.htm

[dullonien]

I&#39;m not keen on the way you view God Jacovw. On the one hand you say that he provided us this wonderful world, it&#39;s up to us to treat it right. In other words, none of the suffering on this world is due to God, it&#39;s somehow always our fault. And yet, God then get&#39;s all the praise for anything good done on this earth, i.e. your fine. I don&#39;t see how the two can work together. Either God oversees everything, helping people out when he feels like it, but also heaping loads of pain on others. Or he has no influence in anything that happens on this earth.

If a surgeon saves someones life even though the odds were against it, was that God&#39;s doing or the surgeons? When an old lady, who&#39;s worshiped God her entire life, get&#39;s attacked by some thug, is that God&#39;s doing, or the attackers?

I have no problem in you believing in Christianity, I have a problem in your inconsistent views on God&#39;s day to day influence.

[KZNSharksFan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 20 2009, 04:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417250')</div>
Well, this isn&#39;t the first "religion" thread on this forum and it surely won&#39;t be the last.
So, what am I sick of?
1)
Half-assed opinions of religion. You don&#39;t bother to take the time to study a religion but are more than willing to offer your criticism based on hearsay from half-assed followers of said religion.
Here&#39;s the problem with the majority of Christians today: they don&#39;t fully practice their religious faith and know very little about it. Then people like the previous posters get their ideals of Christianity from these people and make absurd statements about God and the Devil, etc...

2)
Creationism and Evolution are both theories of how the earth was made. End of the story, there is nothing more scientific about Evolutionist Big Bang than there is Creationist...uhm...Creation. This is not me saying that Natural Selection doesn&#39;t take place, I&#39;m merely talking about how the earth began...We don&#39;t know how it began, so regardless of what we teach, it&#39;s an unprovable theory. So, what is wrong with presenting both theories? Saying, some people believe theory A, some people believe theory B. The truth is we don&#39;t know. Then move on from the subject.

3)
What irks me about some of your rambling is you are attacking Christianity which for better or worse has created the world you live in. Without the organization of the church, Western Civilization wouldn&#39;t be where we are today. I know you can say without religion a lot of horrible things wouldn&#39;t have happend too. The simple point is it got us to where we are, which is vastly far ahead of the rest of the un-Western world.[/b]

1)

Very good point I thought. Many, in fact almost all people I have ever met who have put forth an idea/interpretation of christianity have done so with minimal knowledge about the history of the religion and use vague statements and "heresay" to back up their arguments.
I feel this only begs the question then, that, as religion is (in most forms) meant to be applicable to all of humankind, WHY is it so damned non-intuitive, with vague definitions and directions to the "correct way of living". Surely if a mightier entity deemed it important that we live and behave in certain ways, then said entity would have made it a bit fu***** clearer as to what religion to follow! And made "religion" more suitable to the scope of human perception, that is: making religion something that is far more tangible, logical and suitable to the human condition than it is!

2)

Now, I know for sure that there is a LOT of scientific evidence, proven through the faultlessness of the scientific method, that puts forth a very compelling case for how the earth was formed etc. The funny thing is, there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution, the big bang etc, yet no evidence whatsoever that supports the theory of creationism.

3) That&#39;s just f****** ridiculous. YES the church was what granted the early European monarchs their power through the worship of the King/Queen as a semi-god, and the organisation of nations through central authorities did contribute to vast social and technological advancements. However, improvements in trade and exploration accounted for the exponential growth of science and social science from the 1500&#39;s onwards.

To say that the church is responsible for the state of the modern world is ludicrous, when, during the crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, christianity systematically stripped/stole Islamic nations of their advances in science and mathematics (a notable example being the arabic numbering system and the concept of the number "0", information everyone disregards as basic knowledge, but which was the foundation of renaissance mathematicians studies, modern engineering and indeed the post medieval world)

I personally believe there is some higher power, whether that be some all knowing, all powerful entity or indeed the sum total of the physical laws of the universe, past present and future. Which one? I don&#39;t know, though what I do know is that I know far too little to pass any sweeping judgement on the matter, and I have a strong suspicion that that applies to all of human kind, though most would try to deny it.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Meh @ Oct 23 2009, 12:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417649')</div>
Some people even think Evolution and Christian faith are compatible.[/b]
Christians say that, and to do so means you must acknowledge that god was telling a bit of a fib in the bible eh?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Meh @ Oct 23 2009, 12:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417650')</div>
There&#39;s a difference between the motive and actual belief though - some people might see the logic in believing in God and then research or look into the possibility. Which is different to just saying - Oh, if God exists I&#39;m alright, I&#39;ll believe then.[/b]
So if you really really really really try to force yourself to believe your alright?

Either way, what if there is a god but your religion is the wrong one! What is Apollo was the real one. Then your truly fooked and ............. well I may be able to sneak in. You&#39;d imagine its probably a better option to remain independent of all of them.

Oh and +1 what Steve said.

[jacovw]

Sorry i&#39;ll be sure to include tons of smily faces next time I crack a joke (the i&#39;m fine you&#39;re in trouble thing)! Please guys I don&#39;t want us to lose our sense of humor! That&#39;s depressing!

But as to my view on God and the statements in the law of Moses:

First things first; God&#39;s people were to be a unique completely separated people group of whom everybody would say, "oh of course these people are so holy and stuff they must serve the real God!" the stricter the penalty the more the crime drops and every SA boy on this Forum says Amen! Now repeatedly there were prophesies of a new law that would be written on peoples heart instead of on stone tablets, this is why i will not have to stone my daughter (don&#39;t have a future springbok fly half yet). The Bible clearly states that Jesus came to perfect the Law... oh and by the way any of those sins that were committed could be atoned for with a sacrifice, so teenagers weren&#39;t being dragged out and stoned just to see how brittle they are, in fact you would probably see father and son walking through the streets with a goat and daddy saying: "you are going to make me a very poor man with all this sinning!" :P These Sacrifices could not cover sin forever cause hey a goat can only cover that much of a Drunk teen saying "NNNNOOOO MMAAA, I&#39;m SHHHOBER!" Just like today people were misinterpreting (or actually abusing) what God was trying to say, so Jesus came to set the record straight, knock down death and save humanity (all in a day&#39;s work if you&#39;re perfect!). There are stunning examples in every chapter of the old testament of God&#39;s love and forgiveness! Trust me old testament Loving God is one of my Favorite subjects.

As for the more powerful argument: why do children and babies have to suffer... Man the normal response would be we live in a fallen world and sometimes good people get hurt, might be 100% true but i would blame no one if that just didn&#39;t seem sufficient, I don&#39;t know how many times i wish i had the right answer, but alas i have to trust that as He has proven in so many cases that he will not waste their hurt...

My fine getting sorted did save a life, though, it saved mine... stupid as that may sound it was one of those moments of testing that was going to decide a future. That moment turned me into an honest man who has not received a ticket since, who has not got drunk and rowdy since, and who is a good Father and Husband to his Family. So if I may get defensive for one minute: Don&#39;t ever, ever... diminish defining moments just because you have not experienced it to the positive in your own life (or even if you have!).

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417666')</div>
Don&#39;t ever, ever... diminish delusional moments in another just because you have not experienced it to the positive in your own life (or even if you have!).[/b]
Fixed that for you.

If you dont want to be ridiculed about your dementia, keep it to yourself.

[Jer1cho]

My CPU in my PC died a couple of days ago. So, i posted on facebook to everyone that i need some help in order to get a new one before rAge2009 (The countries largest LAN event.) That same day, my dad called, asked what happened, and gave me R1500.00 Then a mate gave me some more cash, followed by my sister, and then i got a new processor THE VERY SAME DAY. Does this mean i should pray to Facebook? Seeing as it answered me, by telling my family members and friends to help pitch in?

I think it&#39;s rubbish that you can choose what God helped you with, and what he didn&#39;t. That fax machine thing you were talking about, immediately spelled it out. Before even thinking rationally, that just maybe, some **** was working the machine for the first time, or that there was any possibility that it was caused by human error, you automatically attribute it to divine intervention. I&#39;m sorry, but it&#39;s that kind of irrational thinking that prevent&#39;s me from even trying to convince myself that prayers are actually answered.

[Steve-o]

Alright Jaco I can see you obviously attached to your religion as you&#39;re countering with pure emotion. I know it&#39;s a very deep personal choice to follow a religion. I did for many years, trust me, I was deep into this stuff but it never really sat well with me. Me walking away from Christianity has changed my life for the better. I now feel free and enlightened, and not afraid of death. I have accepted for myself that death is coming and it will be much like before I was born. Nothing.
I&#39;m not gonna say anything more on the matter as people have interested their lifes in a subject like this, which distorts what could be a good debate, as well educated people refuse to think critically when it comes to religion. Quite off putting really.

[jacovw]

Two things:

I never called it a miracle! And I never said Human error did not cause it! And I never said screwy office equipment didn&#39;t attribute to the process. My point was it was pretty great how at one of the lowest points and longest runs of bad luck in my life, all these errors fell nicely alongside my first serious prayer... You gotta agree that&#39;s nice :) you don&#39;t have to agree it&#39;s supernatural just darn nice!

And I was just asking that we keep a good sense of fair play and not get personal here when i said you shouldn&#39;t diminish defining moments!

Oh and you can&#39;t choose what God helps you with, if he thought it was just a clever little ploy on my side to duck the law, who knows... but he knew the change that would happen that&#39;s what prompted the positive answer to prayer. God Answers every prayer prayed in faith, and quite often also those in desperation!

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 23 2009, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417668')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417666')
Don&#39;t ever, ever... diminish delusional moments in another just because you have not experienced it to the positive in your own life (or even if you have!).[/b]
Fixed that for you.

If you dont want to be ridiculed about your dementia, keep it to yourself.
[/b][/quote]

delusion [dɪˈluːʒən]
n
1. (Psychiatry) a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc. he has delusions of grandeur
2. (Psychiatry) Psychiatry a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason See also illusion, hallucination
3. (Psychiatry) the act of deluding or state of being deluded

Then I&#39;m one sick puppy!
1. i did not have a delusion of praying or of either phone call it all happened
2. truth be told i can only give you the evidence of my wife who was there when it happened
3. this could be true if they were lying to me and the Fine is still lying there just waiting to gobble me up

I said "Defining Moments" meaning a moment that changed my life
If it was a delusion then surely i&#39;m just imagining a change in my life? Aren&#39;t you Irish don&#39;t get personal I like the Irish!

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 23 2009, 11:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417647')</div>
Thats Pascels wager (or Parcels I cant remember). He, as a scientist deduced that it was a better bet to believe than not believe as you have a greater chance of getting a return on the bet. If there is a god great your in, if not you lose nothing.[/b]
Pascal&#39;s.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 23 2009, 11:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417647')</div>
Educated adults are an absolute bitch to convince (as Faith is effectively admitting you believe in something you know cant be true) so the churches focuses on children and the less well educated. Either way, they attack those that simply dont know any better.[/b]
No, wrong way round. Faith requires belief in something that can&#39;t be proven. Wise people tend to accept this. It&#39;s the uneducated who need everything to be shown to them.

I don&#39;t really defend religion. I have enough experience to know that organisations that work on principle rather than by trying to fix every fiddly problem allow a lot more freedom to the people. So christianity&#39;s struggle to reconcile faith and reason is very interesting to me. It&#39;s certainly far superior to Islam&#39;s chaos.

Social engineering by big church or big government is distressing. And historical debates and shouting matches over the badges of religion and atheism not so interesting.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417666')</div>
As for the more powerful argument: why do children and babies have to suffer... Man the normal response would be we live in a fallen world and sometimes good people get hurt, might be 100% true but i would blame no one if that just didn&#39;t seem sufficient, I don&#39;t know how many times i wish i had the right answer, but alas i have to trust that as He has proven in so many cases that he will not waste their hurt...[/b]

Let&#39;s treat it like you&#39;d treat any other intellectual discussion. In every single important discussion, if someone makes a claim, it must be backed up by evidence.

For example, I can claim "Swaziland is bigger than South Africa". To back up my claim, I have to then quote a source, with facts on population and/ or land area data for the two countries to back me up.

I cannot claim this to be true and then say "It&#39;s bigger cos my mate Dave says so"; or "It&#39;s bigger cos I can draw a map"; or any other innacurate answer. If someone then has a counter-claim to make, I expect similar detailed evidence.

So, with the religion question. Jacovw, you claim that there is a Christian God, who is still active in the world today. I would like to see some hard evidence to support this.

Many atheists claim that the Big Bang theory is what created the Universe. Since the Big Bang Theory is not hard evidence either, we cannot convincingly say that this is the true origin of the Universe either.

So, I&#39;ll use my brain to scythe my way towards the truth. Which is that we cannot perfectly explain many things about the Universe we live in. Think on the subject and you should be at peace with the fact that some things, so far, are unexplainable. I think the Big Bang Theory is the more credible of the thousands of theories that have been thought up by mankind to explain our origins, but we cannot rely on it. And if we cannot fully trust the most credible theory, then we certainly cannot trust the rest.

Bringing &#39;trust&#39; or &#39;faith&#39; into a discussion is the same as bringing in hearsay or made-up facts. If you want to stubbornly go on believeing, go ahead. But do it as an individual, and on shaky intellectual grounds.

[dullonien]

I can understand how people cn interpret certain acts, as acts from God. Hot so sure you should have done so with something as small as a fax machine jamming jacovw, however I can understand due to the whole experience you had. One member of my family went through a similar thing in her life. She had always been a religious person, but had stopped believing due to a number of things happening in her life. It had become so bad, that one day she decided she&#39;d end it all. She bought a load of pain killers and a bottle of booze, and sat on her bed building up the courage to do so. At that moment an old friend that she haddn&#39;t spoken to in years called her on her mobile to catch up (he happened to be a religious person), and she burst into tears and told him everything. He instantly dropped everything and drove a few hours to be with her and help her through this hard time in her life. Church became an important part of her healing process. She trully believes that God interviened in her life on that day, saving her.

I suppose in part this is why I try and understand why people believe in Christianity etc. Although I see that same event as a very fortunate coincidence, she sees things differently (who can blame her?). This is why I maintain that there is a place in this world for religion and God, if that&#39;s what someone needs or chooses.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 23 2009, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417677')</div>
Alright Jaco I can see you obviously attached to your religion as you&#39;re countering with pure emotion. I know it&#39;s a very deep personal choice to follow a religion. I did for many years, trust me, I was deep into this stuff but it never really sat well with me. Me walking away from Christianity has changed my life for the better. I now feel free and enlightened, and not afraid of death. I have accepted for myself that death is coming and it will be much like before I was born. Nothing.
I&#39;m not gonna say anything more on the matter as people have interested their lifes in a subject like this, which distorts what could be a good debate, as well educated people refuse to think critically when it comes to religion. Quite off putting really.[/b]

Thanks Bru

You&#39;re Right, I think my first mention of it was just to prove a point i was trying to make but carrying on is stupid and of the topic. if someone disagrees tough cookies it&#39;s not like i&#39;m loosing a great buddy! Sorry guys will keep it to the point! (or try at least!)

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 24 2009, 03:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417683')</div>
So, with the religion question. Jacovw, you claim that there is a Christian God, who is still active in the world today. I would like to see some hard evidence to support this....

... Bringing &#39;trust&#39; or &#39;faith&#39; into a discussion is the same as bringing in hearsay or made-up facts. If you want to stubbornly go on believeing, go ahead. But do it as an individual, and on shaky intellectual grounds.[/b]
But you&#39;re begging the question - faith is based on belief, not evidence, so demanding evidence is beside the point. Your argument is not logical, captain.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 24 2009, 03:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417683')</div>
Many atheists claim that the Big Bang theory is what created the Universe. Since the Big Bang Theory is not hard evidence either, we cannot convincingly say that this is the true origin of the Universe.

So, I&#39;ll use my brain to scythe my way towards the truth. Which is that we cannot perfectly explain many things about the Universe we live in. Think on the subject and you should be at peace with the fact that some things, so far, are unexplainable. I think the Big Bang Theory is the more credible of the thousands of theories that have been thought up by mankind to explain our origins, but we cannot rely on it. And if we cannot fully trust the most credible theory, then we certainly cannot trust the rest.[/b]

Big Bang theory doesn&#39;t dispose of god. It still leaves the matter of the uncaused cause, which is usually referred to as god. Faith recognises that it is impossible to know god, and is therefore intellectually consistent, whereas science throws its hands up in despair because it has to know god before it can accept god.

Evolution is a trickier matter for believers - but that&#39;s just a theory as well, although a lot of people take it as proven.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 23 2009, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417683')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 23 2009, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417666')
As for the more powerful argument: why do children and babies have to suffer... Man the normal response would be we live in a fallen world and sometimes good people get hurt, might be 100% true but i would blame no one if that just didn&#39;t seem sufficient, I don&#39;t know how many times i wish i had the right answer, but alas i have to trust that as He has proven in so many cases that he will not waste their hurt...[/b]

Let&#39;s treat it like you&#39;d treat any other intellectual discussion. In every single important discussion, if someone makes a claim, it must be backed up by evidence.

For example, I can claim "Swaziland is bigger than South Africa". To back up my claim, I have to then quote a source, with facts on population and/ or land area data for the two countries to back me up.

I cannot claim this to be true and then say "It&#39;s bigger cos my mate Dave says so"; or "It&#39;s bigger cos I can draw a map"; or any other innacurate answer. If someone then has a counter-claim to make, I expect similar detailed evidence.

So, with the religion question. Jacovw, you claim that there is a Christian God, who is still active in the world today. I would like to see some hard evidence to support this.

Many atheists claim that the Big Bang theory is what created the Universe. Since the Big Bang Theory is not hard evidence either, we cannot convincingly say that this is the true origin of the Universe either.

So, I&#39;ll use my brain to scythe my way towards the truth. Which is that we cannot perfectly explain many things about the Universe we live in. Think on the subject and you should be at peace with the fact that some things, so far, are unexplainable. I think the Big Bang Theory is the more credible of the thousands of theories that have been thought up by mankind to explain our origins, but we cannot rely on it. And if we cannot fully trust the most credible theory, then we certainly cannot trust the rest.

Bringing &#39;trust&#39; or &#39;faith&#39; into a discussion is the same as bringing in hearsay or made-up facts. If you want to stubbornly go on believeing, go ahead. But do it as an individual, and on shaky intellectual grounds.
[/b][/quote]

Well I think most of what I said Agrees exactly with what you&#39;re saying, sorry i can&#39;t prove it but for personal experience, which I&#39;ve promised Steve-O i won&#39;t get into... but can you disprove his existence... this whole proof argument is wet, none of what we speak about as far as God and Creation, or No-God and Evolution can be reproduced in a lab. Just yesterday the theory on how the moon was formed had changed, until yesterday all evidence seemed solid cause it was all they had...

[O'Rothlain]

So, what&#39;s really on trial here? Faith versus the Scientific Method?
You&#39;ll never find empirical evidence of God. So, that&#39;s a win for the anti-religion posse.
What I can say is that the historical evidence of the Abrahamic Faiths is hard to dispute. It&#39;s hard to dispute the worldwide spread of Christianity and it&#39;s massive influence. It&#39;s hard to dispute Islam and their call to holiness, which for better or worse is dominating parts of the globe. It&#39;s hard to dispute the influence and love/hate relationship the world has with Israel and the people of the Jewish Faith.
All I can say is there is something to Jehovah/Allah. Something about this one particular faith which claims in One absolute God has dominated this world since written histories were made and still does to this day.
I could argue scripture and point out how your claims of double standards are wrong, but to have that sort of conversation you&#39;d actually have to be well versed in my religion. Sure you can, as some websites have, pull some abstract verses out of the context of all of sacred scripture and make our faith look evil, and make it say really whatever you want (there are hundreds of pastors that do it within the faith, so why shouldn&#39;t people outside of the faith not have a go at manipulating the written word?). The point is I&#39;m not, nor is any other religious person on this forum, going to show the light (I&#39;m using that in a sarcastic tone, boys, don&#39;t get all fueled up with your anti-religious ferver) to people who despise religion and faith.
Some of you may have made peace with the idea that there is no God. I have not, nor will, because it doesn&#39;t add up. I think this universe screams "Intellegent Design." That is a point I&#39;d actually like to see refuted, because I don&#39;t think it&#39;s ever been successfully done.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 23 2009, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417686')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 24 2009, 03:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417683')
So, with the religion question. Jacovw, you claim that there is a Christian God, who is still active in the world today. I would like to see some hard evidence to support this....

... Bringing &#39;trust&#39; or &#39;faith&#39; into a discussion is the same as bringing in hearsay or made-up facts. If you want to stubbornly go on believeing, go ahead. But do it as an individual, and on shaky intellectual grounds.[/b]
But you&#39;re begging the question - faith is based on belief, not evidence, so demanding evidence is beside the point. Your argument is not logical, captain.

[/b][/quote]

My argument is logical... if faith is based on belief then it is utterly futile. The difference is, without the human brain there would be no such thing as faith. Science, on the other hand, is constantly happening around us, and would happen whether or not mankind existed.

As for non-creationist Christians, I just cannot understand how you think someone could create the entire Universe, and then sit around for billions of years before telling a small part of one species in a single region of one planet about what they&#39;d created!!!

And O&#39;Ro, you can&#39;t claim that Abrahamic faiths have a lot going for them just because they&#39;re popular (which Judaism isn&#39;t, really). The most widely-read newspapers in Britain are the tabloids which distribute a lot of bull**** that people believe because people are gullible. Does this make them bastions of the truth?

And refute an assumption like &#39;the universe screams intelligent design&#39;? Easy. The universe screams that there are many secrets and things that the ever-curious Human wants to know. Since the Human has an inflated sense of his own importance and places himself at the top of the hierarchy of the Universe, he assumes that something he cannot get his head round is created by something otherworldly. He thinks, &#39;surely nothing in my own Universe can confuse me this much&#39;. This subconscious arrogance turns into the ignorance that is religion. An easy option for Humans to use to explain a failure of their own curiosity.

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 24 2009, 04:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417695')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 23 2009, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417686')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 24 2009, 03:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417683')
So, with the religion question. Jacovw, you claim that there is a Christian God, who is still active in the world today. I would like to see some hard evidence to support this....

... Bringing &#39;trust&#39; or &#39;faith&#39; into a discussion is the same as bringing in hearsay or made-up facts. If you want to stubbornly go on believeing, go ahead. But do it as an individual, and on shaky intellectual grounds.[/b]
But you&#39;re begging the question - faith is based on belief, not evidence, so demanding evidence is beside the point. Your argument is not logical, captain.

[/b][/quote]

My argument is logical... if faith is based on belief then it is utterly futile. The difference is, without the human brain there would be no such thing as faith. Science, on the other hand, is constantly happening around us, and would happen whether or not mankind existed.[/b][/quote]
But that&#39;s not your argument - you said faith is meaningless because it&#39;s not backed up by evidence, and I said that&#39;s illogical because faith forgoes the need for evidence.

Querying whether faith is based on belief is like doubting that rain is made from water.

And science isn&#39;t happening around us all the time. We make science through our reason. Chemical reactions may go on all the time, but if we didn&#39;t have reason to observe those reactions they wouldn&#39;t really matter, would they? I suppose the cockroaches might complain, but who cares about them? Christians believe that reason is a gift from god to give us a chink of light on the truth.

[aligmacd123]

A lot of this topic is based on misconception.

Some churches do have some "wacky" ideals and I as a Christian believe that some of that stuff is utter ********.

I believe stuff in the Bible. Any other Christian doctrine should be examined for biblical truth and if i has no evidence it shouldn&#39;t be taught.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 23 2009, 11:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417695')</div>
As for non-creationist Christians, I just cannot understand how you think someone could create the entire Universe, and then sit around for billions of years before telling a small part of one species in a single region of one planet about what they&#39;d created!!!

And O&#39;Ro, you can&#39;t claim that Abrahamic faiths have a lot going for them just because they&#39;re popular (which Judaism isn&#39;t, really). The most widely-read newspapers in Britain are the tabloids which distribute a lot of bull**** that people believe because people are gullible. Does this make them bastions of the truth?

And refute an assumption like &#39;the universe screams intelligent design&#39;? Easy. The universe screams that there are many secrets and things that the ever-curious Human wants to know. Since the Human has an inflated sense of his own importance and places himself at the top of the hierarchy of the Universe, he assumes that something he cannot get his head round is created by something otherworldly. He thinks, &#39;surely nothing in my own Universe can confuse me this much&#39;. This subconscious arrogance turns into the ignorance that is religion. An easy option for Humans to use to explain a failure of their own curiosity.[/b]
There is a difference between tabloid journalism and religion. You can say something about popularity and widespread growth. It is either complete hype, or there is something behind it. I think the last 2,000 years would have shown whether or not it was just hype, but yet it hasn&#39;t as these faiths continue to grow. Just because they light has dimmed in a post-modern, post-christian world, doesn&#39;t mean that in other parts of the globe it&#39;s not going stronger than ever. Also, it may not take the same shape it did in the past in America, but driving around my new city of Dallas, I can assure you there are so many centers of worship for these three faiths it staggers me sometimes.

I think it is your subconcious that doesn&#39;t like to deal with being told how to live that discredits anything to do with spirituality. Negate the basis of faith and you simply don&#39;t have to believe. That argument works against you as much as it does for you.

[O'Rothlain]

In my quest to add some material to this debate here are two web-articles to read. One in each camp. One pro-creation/religion, one article on humanism/atheism. I think we could possibly add a new dimension to our conversation (which is what I hope we are having and not just a big **** off).
http://www.newsweek.com/id/219009
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dragon.html

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 23 2009, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417686')</div>
faith is based on belief, not evidence, so demanding evidence is beside the point. Your argument is not logical, captain.[/b]
The request for evidence is perfectly logical. Its the concept of faith that isnt. Arguing around it is just a pedantic exercise in manipulating the english language.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 23 2009, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417686')</div>
Big Bang theory doesn&#39;t dispose of god. It still leaves the matter of the uncaused cause, which is usually referred to as god.[/b]
Hawkins had some pretty mad stuff on this. I think he believed that there was no beginning and no end but I didnt understand after about 2 sentences. Either way, the Big bang thoery doesnt dispose of God as you said, but it does dispose of the Abrahamic Gods.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 23 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417731')</div>
Christians believe that reason is a gift from god to give us a chink of light on the truth.[/b]
Not on the truth, but on the revealed truth as set out in the bible. They already know the truth, they just have to prove it. Science on the other hand acknowledges the lack of knowledge and is trying to discover it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 23 2009, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417688')</div>
So, what&#39;s really on trial here? Faith versus the Scientific Method?[/b]
Its the old Faith vs Reason debate isnt it. Well thats what it turned into pretty quickly. Personally I prefer to look at religions role in society, but it always biols down to this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 23 2009, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417688')</div>
What I can say is that the historical evidence of the Abrahamic Faiths is hard to dispute.[/b]
Quite a bit of that history has already been disproven, or the attempts to prove it have failed. This is one of the things in this debate that really peeves me. There are so many voices now contradicting eachother that its hard to soft through the nonsense. I find a link saying that the Exodus never happened, you just find one that confirms it did. I find one showing a human head that is in or around 200,000 years old and you get one that shows a dinasaur one that is 2 weeks old. For areas that are still up for debate thats all well and good, but for others that have been proven beyond doubt, it becomes annoying. I&#39;m not accusing YOU of doing it, but the Christian right are doing it far too often.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 23 2009, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417688')</div>
It&#39;s hard to dispute the worldwide spread of Christianity and it&#39;s massive influence. It&#39;s hard to dispute Islam and their call to holiness, which for better or worse is dominating parts of the globe. It&#39;s hard to dispute the influence and love/hate relationship the world has with Israel and the people of the Jewish Faith.[/b]
True. Thats the crux of it for me. So much power, vested in so many unreasonable people. Its dangerous.

I spose the one benefit is that the faster it spreads the faster Athiesm spreads along with it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 23 2009, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417688')</div>
I think this universe screams "Intellegent Design." That is a point I&#39;d actually like to see refuted, because I don&#39;t think it&#39;s ever been successfully done.[/b]
Intelligent design as set out in the Bible has, unless you are expecting us to ignore some fundamental rules of physics like the speed of light.

[jacovw]

"Its the old Faith vs Reason debate isnt it. Well thats what it turned into pretty quickly. Personally I prefer to look at religions role in society, but it always biols down to this."

We as Christians so often do this, we get ourselves not sucked into (cause it&#39;s all of our own doing) but stuck into an argument that could run around the same mountain a million times, and get nowhere... As you started the thread, I want to agree and say let&#39;s look at Religion&#39;s Role in the world. And truth be told the idea of religion that jumps into mind when we hear the word, should never have had, and do not have a role in today&#39;s society. People going to mass meetings and praying certain set prayers and paying big money or looking at sacred objects all to fix themselves for a life after this one is selfish and irresponsible in a world where people are dying of hunger and disease. The bible says "show me your faith without deeds... i&#39;ll show you mine by my deeds!" "Faith without action is empty!" "we must be the hands and feet of God." "True Religion is taking care of Widows and Orphans!" "Feed the hungry, clothe the naked..." all these are quick paraphrases but still true to the essence of what the New Testament church were told to do! A Church that practices this true religion can not be told it has no place in society... I&#39;ve been part of such a church and sadly part of another. There were good people in the latter one, rich and influential people, and they did great and wonderful things for each other, but never ever saw the inside of a informal settlement or squatter camp! The bible says that if we are good to those who love us what good is that, anyone can and will do that, be good to those who hate you or cannot give anything back! And that&#39;s what the other church did, i do not know a single person (from that church) who has not been involved in a feeding scheme, or christmas party, or building/housing project for the underprivilaged, aged, or orphans... many of these even went to other countries to do the same!

Now if anyone tells me that kind of Church/religion has no place in society, they are probably a doer of good to those who can pay them back!

[jacovw]

Oh and there are a million to one ratio of factual-cracktual info on either scientific camp so let&#39;s not use just any internet resource... (only a suggestion if we are continuing the faith/reason debate) use the laws of physics and state how they apply... if we can&#39;t do that our argument is as solid as a sponge! But maybe we can get back to the original idea of this thread...

[Steve-o]

I wanna how more interesting this thread would be if we had a muslim and hindu as well. Everybody would have "facts & evidence" to back-up their religion. I&#39;d love to see Jaco and O&#39;Roth telling the muslim he can wipe with his right hand. That&#39;s what&#39;s making this thread very one dimensional. The Atheism vs Religion debate is fruitless, as both camps are coming from completely different places (evidence & common sense vs faith & belief). But Religion vs Religion, ah now that&#39;s when the big guns come out!

[aligmacd123]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 25 2009, 09:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417836')</div>
evidence & common sense vs faith & belief[/b]
What evidence do you have?

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ Oct 25 2009, 11:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417841')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 25 2009, 09:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417836')
evidence & common sense vs faith & belief[/b]
What evidence do you have?
[/b][/quote]

The way you reacted to that statement again shows the fundamental difference how the 2 parties view things. Atheists (terrible word BTW sounds like a condition) are not out to disprove with evidence, but rather shoulder off religion due to a lack of evidence. I cannot disprove the Lochness monster, Big Foot or Leprechauns with evidence but rather use common sense and a lack of evidence to shoulder it off and not believe it.

That&#39;s how I can&#39;t believe in: (1) A virgin birth (2) Miracles (why have no amputees been healed?) (3) A human being coming back from the dead after 3 days to later rise up on a cloud to heaven.

[dullonien]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 25 2009, 04:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417829')</div>
"Its the old Faith vs Reason debate isnt it. Well thats what it turned into pretty quickly. Personally I prefer to look at religions role in society, but it always biols down to this."

We as Christians so often do this, we get ourselves not sucked into (cause it&#39;s all of our own doing) but stuck into an argument that could run around the same mountain a million times, and get nowhere... As you started the thread, I want to agree and say let&#39;s look at Religion&#39;s Role in the world. And truth be told the idea of religion that jumps into mind when we hear the word, should never have had, and do not have a role in today&#39;s society. People going to mass meetings and praying certain set prayers and paying big money or looking at sacred objects all to fix themselves for a life after this one is selfish and irresponsible in a world where people are dying of hunger and disease. The bible says "show me your faith without deeds... i&#39;ll show you mine by my deeds!" "Faith without action is empty!" "we must be the hands and feet of God." "True Religion is taking care of Widows and Orphans!" "Feed the hungry, clothe the naked..." all these are quick paraphrases but still true to the essence of what the New Testament church were told to do! A Church that practices this true religion can not be told it has no place in society... I&#39;ve been part of such a church and sadly part of another. There were good people in the latter one, rich and influential people, and they did great and wonderful things for each other, but never ever saw the inside of a informal settlement or squatter camp! The bible says that if we are good to those who love us what good is that, anyone can and will do that, be good to those who hate you or cannot give anything back! And that&#39;s what the other church did, i do not know a single person (from that church) who has not been involved in a feeding scheme, or christmas party, or building/housing project for the underprivilaged, aged, or orphans... many of these even went to other countries to do the same!

Now if anyone tells me that kind of Church/religion has no place in society, they are probably a doer of good to those who can pay them back![/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 25 2009, 10:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417843')</div>
The way you reacted to that statement again shows the fundamental difference how the 2 parties view things. Atheists (terrible word BTW sounds like a condition) are not out to disprove with evidence, but rather shoulder off religion due to a lack of evidence. I cannot disprove the Lochness monster, Big Foot or Leprechauns with evidence but rather use common sense and a lack of evidence to shoulder it off and not believe it.[/b]

Two excellent posts right there imo.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 25 2009, 03:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417836')</div>
I&#39;d love to see Jaco and O&#39;Roth telling the muslim he can wipe with his right hand. That&#39;s what&#39;s making this thread very one dimensional. But Religion vs Religion, ah now that&#39;s when the big guns come out![/b]
Not one comment I&#39;ve made has been about how right my brand of faith is, just backing up faith(s) in general. I think if I encounter a muslim we both understand that we have very absolute ideals. I wouldn&#39;t dare tell a muslim he can wipe with his right hand. Just like I&#39;m not going to offer a Jew a lovely bit of roasted pork (well, either of those guys really). This thread isn&#39;t about me saying my religion is right, I&#39;m just here to defend religion and I will use my personal experience and knowledge to back it up which is dominated by christian thought.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 25 2009, 10:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417843')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ Oct 25 2009, 11:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417841')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 25 2009, 09:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417836')
evidence & common sense vs faith & belief[/b]
What evidence do you have?
[/b][/quote]

The way you reacted to that statement again shows the fundamental difference how the 2 parties view things. Atheists (terrible word BTW sounds like a condition) are not out to disprove with evidence, but rather shoulder off religion due to a lack of evidence. I cannot disprove the Lochness monster, Big Foot or Leprechauns with evidence but rather use common sense and a lack of evidence to shoulder it off and not believe it.

That&#39;s how I can&#39;t believe in: (1) A virgin birth (2) Miracles (why have no amputees been healed?) (3) A human being coming back from the dead after 3 days to later rise up on a cloud to heaven.
[/b][/quote]

You see that&#39;s all great to say but i would bet two of my three chest hairs that you would not except eyewitness accounts like a court does, if three people saw it happening a court would call that credible!

If five Bible college students saw an amputees arm grow back that would not be credible now would it?
If another four Students saw a woman with a crippled foot have it grow at prayer, would that be credible...
If 300 people saw Jesus simultaneously and got their testimony recorded would that be?
If a girl got smashed by a speeding car throwing her two meters up into the air blood coming from every opening (eyes ears mouth) in her face and someone runs to pray for her and she does not spend more than one night in hospital and has no permanent damage... well i think you get the picture.

Just like we say no news is good news, so it&#39;s also true that no good news makes good news!

(and only the Jesus one is far removed from me)

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ Oct 25 2009, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417841')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 25 2009, 09:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417836')
evidence & common sense vs faith & belief[/b]
What evidence do you have?
[/b][/quote]

If you are tslking about evidence of Science, well all the modern things around you like the computer you&#39;ve written this comment on are pretty much an evidence of scientifical procedures, of tests being conducted, of processus being tweaked and tested again until the outcome is 99% predictable. It wasn&#39;t achieved through prayers, believe me.

As for the history of the Universe, well let&#39;s say that if you tell me that Unicorns exist and I tell you they don&#39;t, I am not the one having to prove anything...

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Oct 25 2009, 08:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417864')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ Oct 25 2009, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417841')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 25 2009, 09:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417836')
evidence & common sense vs faith & belief[/b]
What evidence do you have?
[/b][/quote]

If you are tslking about evidence of Science, well all the modern things around you like the computer you&#39;ve written this comment on are pretty much an evidence of scientifical procedures, of tests being conducted, of processus being tweaked and tested again until the outcome is 99% predictable. It wasn&#39;t achieved through prayers, believe me.

As for the history of the Universe, well let&#39;s say that if you tell me that Unicorns exist and I tell you they don&#39;t, I am not the one having to prove anything...
[/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t think a single religious person on here is questioning science. Just as proof is demanded of us for a God who created the universe, alexmac was asking for evidence of the atheistic start of the universe.
It goes back to the beginning of all this. We both have theories about the start. We both have to have faith to believe in it. One of the groups relies on philosophical thought, the other on emperical research. The only problem is neither of us can prove a thing.

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 25 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417865')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Oct 25 2009, 08:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417864')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ Oct 25 2009, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417841')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 25 2009, 09:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417836')
evidence & common sense vs faith & belief[/b]
What evidence do you have?
[/b][/quote]

If you are tslking about evidence of Science, well all the modern things around you like the computer you&#39;ve written this comment on are pretty much an evidence of scientifical procedures, of tests being conducted, of processus being tweaked and tested again until the outcome is 99% predictable. It wasn&#39;t achieved through prayers, believe me.

As for the history of the Universe, well let&#39;s say that if you tell me that Unicorns exist and I tell you they don&#39;t, I am not the one having to prove anything...
[/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t think a single religious person on here is questioning science. Just as proof is demanded of us for a God who created the universe, alexmac was asking for evidence of the atheistic start of the universe.
It goes back to the beginning of all this. We both have theories about the start. We both have to have faith to believe in it. One of the groups relies on philosophical thought, the other on emperical research. The only problem is neither of us can prove a thing.
[/b][/quote]

Well let&#39;s say that since Science has proven a lot of things I am more inclined to "believe" scientific theories, as opposed to Religion (any of them) who has yet to prove anything.
As for the proof we ask about God..Unicorns...

If somebody says something contrary to any common sense and opposed to any scientific evidence, and I can not disprove it, it doesn7t make it exist. I am not the one having to prove anything.

It&#39;s like if I tell you I met Mick Jagger yesterday and you can&#39;t disprove it, doesn&#39;t mean I did.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 25 2009, 05:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417829')</div>
Now if anyone tells me that kind of Church/religion has no place in society, they are probably a doer of good to those who can pay them back![/b]

Ahhh this old chesnut. It assumes you need god to tell you to be good to others. Why cant you just be good anyway? Why do you need god to tell you to do it? Personally I believe the non-believer who does good because its good, is better than the holy person who does good because he&#39;s told to.

If they dont do it because of religion, then dont take credit for it. If they do, then its because they were told how to be good. Athiests dont need to be told.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 25 2009, 05:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417830')</div>
Oh and there are a million to one ratio of factual-cracktual info on either scientific camp[/b]
There arent two scientific camps. Get that bit straight. There are those who are trying to understand the unknown (lets call them scientists) and there are those trying to confirm the answers they have already been told (lets call that religion). One is science, the other is religion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 25 2009, 05:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417830')</div>
use the laws of physics and state how they apply... if we can&#39;t do that our argument is as solid as a sponge! But maybe we can get back to the original idea of this thread...[/b]
But we cant you see. I mean all you have to do is smile, wink and say that god works in mysterious ways. Either that or just ignore the point. Plenty of points have been made throughout the thread and I havent seen a decent reponse to refute any of the scientific ones (dont ask me to go back, do it yourself).

If the bible is true;

(1) How can we see galaxies that are millions of light years away? Surely their light wouldn&#39;t be here yet as the universe is not old enough?
(2) How will one third of the stars fall to the ground in the end of days? Surely the stars are larger than the Earth, and the first one that comes near our planet will vapourise it instantly.
(3) Do you believe the great flood occured
(4) Why did god create the earth and only turn on the lights the next day. Surely it would have been smarter to turn the lights on on day one, and work in better conditions. Not exactly scientific, but kinda stupid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 25 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417865')</div>
I don&#39;t think a single religious person on here is questioning science.[/b]
Now thats simply not true. Youve just said you dont believe in the big bang, the creation of planets or suns. You believe the earth is 10,000 years old. You believe we were all created from a pile of dust (except women). You believe dinosaurs walked with man.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 25 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417865')</div>
Just as proof is demanded of us for a God who created the universe, alexmac was asking for evidence of the atheistic start of the universe. It goes back to the beginning of all this. We both have theories about the start. We both have to have faith to believe in it. One of the groups relies on philosophical thought, the other on emperical research. The only problem is neither of us can prove a thing.[/b]

Youve said this about 3 or 4 times now. i admire your persistence but your either lying, or ignoring every other reposense to this point. There arent thoeries. Science provides thoeries, Christians dont (remember the testing bit). Science has already gone far enough to disprove whats written in the bible, but because they havent gone 100% of the way (they are trying though (CERN)) you seem to take that as vindication for believing nonsense.

One believes in scientifically proven truth. The other relies on a book written 1500 years ago.

And finally, Athiests do not need faith to believe in what has been proven. Dont compare the two. Athiests have confidence in the truth. They dont subscribe to mumbo jumbo written in a book 1500 years ago that has absolutely no evidence to substantiate it. Religions on the other hand require Faith. Without it they are absolutely nothing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Oct 25 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417868')</div>
If somebody says something contrary to any common sense and opposed to any scientific evidence, and I can not disprove it, it doesnt make it exist. I am not the one having to prove anything.[/b]
Correct. In order for a thoery to be proven it must be tested. This is why "Thoeries" like the big flying spagetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn and the celestial teapot have as much reason to be believed as Christian dogma.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 25 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417865')</div>
Just as proof is demanded of us for a God who created the universe, alexmac was asking for evidence of the atheistic start of the universe. It goes back to the beginning of all this. We both have theories about the start. We both have to have faith to believe in it. One of the groups relies on philosophical thought, the other on emperical research. The only problem is neither of us can prove a thing.[/b]

Please, if you&#39;d read any of my posts you&#39;d see that the Big Bang Theory is not the &#39;Atheistic start of the Universe&#39;. A true atheist has no start to the Universe because nothing has yet been proven. However, of all the Theories bouncing around, the Big Bang is what fits in best with the jigsaw puzzle that is Scientific Knowledge. So, for now, the Big Bang is worth far more than something which is completely and utterly unbelievable.

What&#39;s more, I can&#39;t even qualify creationism as &#39;philosophical thought&#39;.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 25 2009, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417883')</div>
If the bible is true;

(1) How can we see galaxies that are millions of light years away? Surely their light wouldn&#39;t be here yet as the universe is not old enough?
(2) How will one third of the stars fall to the ground in the end of days? Surely the stars are larger than the Earth, and the first one that comes near our planet will vapourise it instantly.
(3) Do you believe the great flood occured
(4) Why did god create the earth and only turn on the lights the next day. Surely it would have been smarter to turn the lights on on day one, and work in better conditions. Not exactly scientific, but kinda stupid.[/b]

There&#39;s been this ongoing thing of we don&#39;t need to disproof your theory because of lack of proof + reason, well that&#39;s not only unscientific but also pretty darn easy now isn&#39;t it... I imagine the majority in scientists doesn&#39;t have that great a track record one man shouts the world is round the rest of Science say "It&#39;s Flat!". Don&#39;t drain out the blood to heal a person "Science screamed bleed him! bleed him!". Same goes for gravity, and even the four minute mile! Before there was proof people were talking about how the scientific view on these things were wrong and again science &#39;gently&#39; (yea right, more like a school yard bully!) shouldered them of! Don&#39;t tell me now there was proof because at first there was none!

Then I want to mention Mother Theresa... and from there leave the ball in your camp because yes, surely she didn&#39;t give a rat&#39;s backside for any of those people but only did it because she was scared...

Then I want to mention that I loved going out to those settlements and feeding schemes, sometimes it was difficult, there were smells and dead animals and boils and puss on kids that are hugging you, but you have to look beyond that. The Bible gives us guidelines such as love the unlovely, not meaning do this or go to hell, but do this because these are the people God cares about!

(1) despite what we have been taught a few years ago in high school science, the speed of light is only a reasonably normal and stable environment, ever been out to the universe? no neither have i but your boys tell me it&#39;s pretty much not normal or stable... Both Switzerland and America have (in a lab) slowed down and sped up light.
(2) See this comes down to that old interpretation thing again, people think it&#39;s up to them to interpret the bible, it&#39;s not the Bible is a handbook to interpreting itself, The great Dragon (speaking of Lucifer), allready caused a third of the stars (speaking of the Angels) to fall... to earth... This is a theological and not Scientific question if you want more on it I have books, but I&#39;m not wasting my time debating this as a Scientific Question!
(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i&#39;ve got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it&#39;s too damn long i type very slow!
(4) Not exactly scientific, just kinda stupid... (God is light, guess what there won&#39;t be a sun in heaven either, and there will be no night!)

Sorry if this seems a bit agro, but there are two science camps! and it&#39;s by terminology and not science that you try and sink your opponents!

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')</div>
(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i&#39;ve got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it&#39;s too damn long i type very slow![/b]

You mean it&#39;s not because all of the Earth&#39;s continents have at some time been underwater thanks to plate tectonics? Please do tell your answer to animal twosies...

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417938')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')
(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i&#39;ve got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it&#39;s too damn long i type very slow![/b]

You mean it&#39;s not because all of the Earth&#39;s continents have at some time been underwater thanks to plate tectonics? Please do tell your answer to animal twosies...
[/b][/quote]

No it&#39;s not, the movement of tectonic plates are supposed to have taken a little more than the time a egg takes to boil... all these things needed catastrophe not slow movements of Tectonic plates... a global flood seems like a good catastrophe!

Small Quote on well known dimensions for the Arc:

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716-foot-long heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The ark&#39;s gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark&#39;s total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts. By comparing the measurements of the ark it is easy to see that it would be comparable to today&#39;s ocean going vessels. It was probably the largest vessel of its type built until the late 1800&#39;s when metal ships were first constructed.

Also well documented: You could fit two (for &#39;unclean&#39;) and/or seven (for &#39;clean&#39;) of the last "five million" years known different "kinds" (lion and tiger is one kind of animal not true, the definition of the word varies but in truth doesn&#39;t matter. My personal definition is that a kind means animals that can be interbred... that part is opinion though.), into the capacity of the Arc with room to spare! Let&#39;s be clear, if the animal is not here today it either died in the flood or it was hunted to extinction afterwards. Yes I believe it was easy enough to take dinosaurs on the arc just don&#39;t take a bloody Brontosaurus, and take the juveniles, many juveniles in the animal kingdom get along without their mommies so this should not be a difficult thought for scientific minds! God told Noah he&#39;ll bring the Animals to the boat so if in the very long process of building the Arc the animals did not pitch, they died, or if you know biology, all reptiles can swim, maybe just maybe some animals survived the flood? i&#39;m sure the fish did!

Another small Quote:
In reality only a small percentage of the animals would have to be taken on board the ark. The vast majority of the animals that inhabit the earth either live in water and/or do not have "the breath of life."

Now if I may ask did you have any problem with my other answers to your questions?

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 02:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417940')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417938')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')
(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i&#39;ve got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it&#39;s too damn long i type very slow![/b]

You mean it&#39;s not because all of the Earth&#39;s continents have at some time been underwater thanks to plate tectonics? Please do tell your answer to animal twosies...
[/b][/quote]

No it&#39;s not, the movement of tectonic plates are supposed to have taken a little more than the time a egg takes to boil... all these things needed catastrophe not slow movements of Tectonic plates... a global flood seems like a good catastrophe!

Small Quote on well known dimensions for the Arc:

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716-foot-long heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The ark&#39;s gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark&#39;s total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts. By comparing the measurements of the ark it is easy to see that it would be comparable to today&#39;s ocean going vessels. It was probably the largest vessel of its type built until the late 1800&#39;s when metal ships were first constructed.

Also well documented: You could fit two (for &#39;unclean&#39;) and/or seven (for &#39;clean&#39;) of the last "five million" years known different "kinds" (lion and tiger is one kind of animal not true, the definition of the word varies but in truth doesn&#39;t matter. My personal definition is that a kind means animals that can be interbred... that part is opinion though.), into the capacity of the Arc with room to spare! Let&#39;s be clear, if the animal is not here today it either died in the flood or it was hunted to extinction afterwards. Yes I believe it was easy enough to take dinosaurs on the arc just don&#39;t take a bloody Brontosaurus, and take the juveniles, many juveniles in the animal kingdom get along without their mommies so this should not be a difficult thought for scientific minds! God told Noah he&#39;ll bring the Animals to the boat so if in the very long process of building the Arc the animals did not pitch, they died, or if you know biology, all reptiles can swim, maybe just maybe some animals survived the flood? i&#39;m sure the fish did!

Another small Quote:
In reality only a small percentage of the animals would have to be taken on board the ark. The vast majority of the animals that inhabit the earth either live in water and/or do not have "the breath of life."

Now if I may ask did you have any problem with my other answers to your questions?
[/b][/quote]

Fair enough you require a &#39;catastrophe&#39; to replace a slow moving process such as plate tectonics if you believe the world is only 10,000 years old. It&#39;s not, it&#39;s billions of years old. There&#39;s been enough plate-shifting for all the continents to be spread out after Pangaea; for India to have slammed into Asia and made the Himalayas (highest mountains in the world)... and so many other things.

Also I don&#39;t see how quoting &#39;stats&#39; about a made-up ship is going to make me believe in it. By the way, the first Zulus invented a plane that had a wingspan of 40 feet and a perspex windscreen.

And two by two is absolutely ridiculous. Even if you discount all the animals in the sea and all of the ones that haven&#39;t even been discovered today, there&#39;s no way they could have found and collected 2 of each animal and put them on an arc. How were a bunch of people in the Old World supposed to find animals like Jaguar and Puma and Tapir that are unique to the New World (which Europeans didn&#39;t reach until the 10th century)...

None of this adds up Jacovw. It may suit you to have &#39;faith&#39; and believe in this because that&#39;s your prerogative. It may even be fun searching out every scientific theory and coming up with a Bible-inspired comeback. O&#39;Rothlain&#39;s &#39;dragons are dinosaurs&#39; was the most priceless so far. But please, I would have so much more respect for you and your views if you accepted they were difficult to prove and hence didn&#39;t bother trying.

[jawmalawm24]

I can&#39;t be stuffed reading through 6 pages of whatever so yeah. Umm I kinda use to be into the whole religion thing before the year 2000 but after that when things like 9-11 I just started to question everything. I use to be all spiritual and stuff ages ago but certain things that have happened in my life in the last 10 years of so just turned me into a realist.

I don&#39;t even know if I&#39;m staying on topic but there&#39;s just so much crap happening the world today that we need to take different approaches towards it. Saying something is wrong in one whole culture maybe the opposite of another culture so there is and will never be a universal understanding of whats right or wrong. It sucks but it&#39;s true and we all just have to live with it.

That&#39;s my 5cents anyway I can&#39;t be bothered writing a story because I&#39;m tired and it&#39;s 11:20pm here in New Zealand and I haven&#39;t whacked one out today so yeah I&#39;m off to sleep peace and love peace and love.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417971')</div>
Fair enough you require a &#39;catastrophe&#39; to replace a slow moving process such as plate tectonics if you believe the world is only 10,000 years old. It&#39;s not, it&#39;s billions of years old. There&#39;s been enough plate-shifting for all the continents to be spread out after Pangaea; for India to have slammed into Asia and made the Himalayas (highest mountains in the world)... and so many other things.

Also I don&#39;t see how quoting &#39;stats&#39; about a made-up ship is going to make me believe in it. By the way, the first Zulus invented a plane that had a wingspan of 40 feet and a perspex windscreen.

And two by two is absolutely ridiculous. Even if you discount all the animals in the sea and all of the ones that haven&#39;t even been discovered today, there&#39;s no way they could have found and collected 2 of each animal and put them on an arc. How were a bunch of people in the Old World supposed to find animals like Jaguar and Puma and Tapir that are unique to the New World (which Europeans didn&#39;t reach until the 10th century)...

None of this adds up Jacovw. It may suit you to have &#39;faith&#39; and believe in this because that&#39;s your prerogative. It may even be fun searching out every scientific theory and coming up with a Bible-inspired comeback. O&#39;Rothlain&#39;s &#39;dragons are dinosaurs&#39; was the most priceless so far. But please, I would have so much more respect for you and your views if you accepted they were difficult to prove and hence didn&#39;t bother trying.[/b]

Slow moving Tectonics would not cause enough disturbance to lump together whole fish and clam shells on the top of mountains... plates move true but too slowly to accomplish that! as the wash of or lowering of water level would be too gradual. Tectonic plates would form these mountains but would not account for the type of fossils. sorry if i did not make this clear.

These stats about a made up ship were
1. not to make you believe in it
2. to show that the whole thing was possible
3. was recorded in 5000+ year old texts that can be more credibly proven than the texts of Julius Caesars conquest of Gaul (fact!)

And as for Jaguars and pumas and lions and Tigers: does your own Theory not say that these all come from one Cat species, yes, we just claim it happened faster than what you say it did... Remember we are not talking about a chicken hatching the first monkey here, just some cats changing color and size as needed to survive. There is also the difference between Adaption and Evolution by the way...

Now I&#39;ve given Science and Reason as explanations for just one account in the bible, there are others that are damn hard to explain, true... the biblical flood is not one of them though. My previous post already answered the new world old world animal thing and now i made it a little clearer. Just give me some reason and Science to refute my own, I&#39;m not asking for respect as i found that in a discussion like this that flies out the window quickly anyway, and i have to wonder , about your last statement: would you really? Would you who can&#39;t see the use of believing the unseen really have more respect for someone who doesn&#39;t at least try to prove, what in reality, is a highly plausible Scientific theory?

Can you tell me the Evolutionary advantages to the development of:
Homosexuality
Men finding flowers pretty
Art
Rugby?

Are we not endlessly wasting time, and energy on these things that our less evolved "cousins" do not do?

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 11:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417983')</div>
Now I&#39;ve given Science and Reason as explanations for just one account in the bible, there are others that are damn hard to explain, true...[/b]

Excuse me ? Where ? Care to provide any link ?

Another question for you.

What makes you think that the Bible is more true than, say, the Mayan Cosmogony. Or any other one, for that matter ...

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Oct 26 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417990')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 11:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417983')
Now I&#39;ve given Science and Reason as explanations for just one account in the bible, there are others that are damn hard to explain, true...[/b]

Excuse me ? Where ? Care to provide any link ?

Another question for you.

What makes you think that the Bible is more true than, say, the Mayan Cosmogony. Or any other one, for that matter ...
[/b][/quote]

Read my last 2 posts o&#39;m not keen on typing it all again

[feicarsinn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417940')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417938')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')
(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i&#39;ve got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it&#39;s too damn long i type very slow![/b]

You mean it&#39;s not because all of the Earth&#39;s continents have at some time been underwater thanks to plate tectonics? Please do tell your answer to animal twosies...
[/b][/quote]

No it&#39;s not, the movement of tectonic plates are supposed to have taken a little more than the time a egg takes to boil... all these things needed catastrophe not slow movements of Tectonic plates... a global flood seems like a good catastrophe!

Small Quote on well known dimensions for the Arc:

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716-foot-long heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The ark&#39;s gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark&#39;s total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts. By comparing the measurements of the ark it is easy to see that it would be comparable to today&#39;s ocean going vessels. It was probably the largest vessel of its type built until the late 1800&#39;s when metal ships were first constructed.

Also well documented: You could fit two (for &#39;unclean&#39;) and/or seven (for &#39;clean&#39;) of the last "five million" years known different "kinds" (lion and tiger is one kind of animal not true, the definition of the word varies but in truth doesn&#39;t matter. My personal definition is that a kind means animals that can be interbred... that part is opinion though.), into the capacity of the Arc with room to spare! Let&#39;s be clear, if the animal is not here today it either died in the flood or it was hunted to extinction afterwards. Yes I believe it was easy enough to take dinosaurs on the arc just don&#39;t take a bloody Brontosaurus, and take the juveniles, many juveniles in the animal kingdom get along without their mommies so this should not be a difficult thought for scientific minds! God told Noah he&#39;ll bring the Animals to the boat so if in the very long process of building the Arc the animals did not pitch, they died, or if you know biology, all reptiles can swim, maybe just maybe some animals survived the flood? i&#39;m sure the fish did!

Another small Quote:
In reality only a small percentage of the animals would have to be taken on board the ark. The vast majority of the animals that inhabit the earth either live in water and/or do not have "the breath of life."

Now if I may ask did you have any problem with my other answers to your questions?
[/b][/quote]
I have a question. How did Noah, Ham, Sham and Japeth build this massive boat in such a short space of time(a week according to the King James bible)? Also how did 4 men manage to gather all these animals together?

One other thing, how is it that Noah and co. all live to be hundreds and hundreds of years old and this is now impossible for us?

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417997')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Oct 26 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417990')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 11:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417983')
Now I&#39;ve given Science and Reason as explanations for just one account in the bible, there are others that are damn hard to explain, true...[/b]

Excuse me ? Where ? Care to provide any link ?

Another question for you.

What makes you think that the Bible is more true than, say, the Mayan Cosmogony. Or any other one, for that matter ...
[/b][/quote]

Read my last 2 posts o&#39;m not keen on typing it all again
[/b][/quote]

What you posted are opinions. Not explanations, let alone scientifically proven facts.
It will take a little more than posts on an internet rugby forum to believe Noah&#39;s Ark story (which was poached from Babylonian cosmogony btw).

Back to square one for you boy.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417983')</div>
Slow moving Tectonics would not cause enough disturbance to lump together whole fish and clam shells on the top of mountains... plates move true but too slowly to accomplish that! as the wash of or lowering of water level would be too gradual. Tectonic plates would form these mountains but would not account for the type of fossils. sorry if i did not make this clear.

These stats about a made up ship were
1. not to make you believe in it
2. to show that the whole thing was possible
3. was recorded in 5000+ year old texts that can be more credibly proven than the texts of Julius Caesars conquest of Gaul (fact!)

And as for Jaguars and pumas and lions and Tigers: does your own Theory not say that these all come from one Cat species, yes, we just claim it happened faster than what you say it did... Remember we are not talking about a chicken hatching the first monkey here, just some cats changing color and size as needed to survive. There is also the difference between Adaption and Evolution by the way...

Now I&#39;ve given Science and Reason as explanations for just one account in the bible, there are others that are damn hard to explain, true... the biblical flood is not one of them though. My previous post already answered the new world old world animal thing and now i made it a little clearer. Just give me some reason and Science to refute my own, I&#39;m not asking for respect as i found that in a discussion like this that flies out the window quickly anyway, and i have to wonder , about your last statement: would you really? Would you who can&#39;t see the use of believing the unseen really have more respect for someone who doesn&#39;t at least try to prove, what in reality, is a highly plausible Scientific theory?

Can you tell me the Evolutionary advantages to the development of:
Homosexuality
Men finding flowers pretty
Art
Rugby?

Are we not endlessly wasting time, and energy on these things that our less evolved "cousins" do not do?[/b]

Erm, if a fish dies, falls to the seabed, fossilises over time and then over more time that same bit of seabed is forced upwards as a mountain range, yes I can see enough disturbance from plate tectonics.

I don&#39;t know what texts are 5000 years old that you&#39;re talking about, but I&#39;ll just say that describing something in immense detail does not make it real. And Julius Caesar is irrelevant to the discussion.

Ok, so all New World animals &#39;adapted&#39; in the past 10,000 years... ok. They&#39;ve not just changed physical attributes (as different races of human have), these animals have developed their genes so independently that they can no longer produce fertile offspring together. Is this really an adaptation?

Your theory is not highly plausible so I have no respect for you trying to prove it. And it is certainly not scientific.

Plus, what is the relevance of the last bit? Man has through his own endeavor created an environment where he can think outside the usual cycle of survival. This is called Civilisation. When man first began farming, and nurtured symbiotic relationships with herds, he reduced the struggle to find food. When he developed weapons and fire and was able to build basic structures, he reduced the struggle to ward off dangerous predators. These advances have developed so far down the line that today, many of us simply walk round the corner to the supermarket for food, and hardly need worry at all about predators. This gives us time to use the creative parts of our brain that would otherwise be reserved for survival. I don&#39;t see how this is a waste of time at all. What&#39;s more, homosexual behavoiur has been observed in other animals too.

[jacovw]

[/quote]

What you posted are opinions. Not explanations, let alone scientifically proven facts.
It will take a little more than posts on an internet rugby forum to believe Noah&#39;s Ark story (which was poached from Babylonian cosmogony btw).

Back to square one for you boy.
[/quote]

This is Scientific Method:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

You will also see that i call it a plausible scientific theory. Both Evolution and this flood theory have to stop at #3. from there it all becomes speculative. I am trying to show that it was possible.
So far on this thread I&#39;ve seen a lot of people shooting down the proof, because they don&#39;t like the theory. Theory first then proof/disproof. That is Science now there are different kinds of proof, and i used two methods: Mathematic (dimensions and capacity of the ark = enough space), and Logic (Kind of Animals + Adaption = greater variety of animals today than what were on the Arc)
As for other Flood myths, they prove nothing but one thing that just about all people groups in the world had a story passed down to them from ages ago:
if we apply Logical Reasoning to this it&#39;s quite possible to believe they all came from one source! if that is true one of the stories has to be closest to the truth... i&#39;m just picking the one I believe in!

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418012')</div>
This is Scientific Method:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

You will also see that i call it a plausible scientific theory. Both Evolution and this flood theory have to stop at #3. from there it all becomes speculative. I am trying to show that it was possible.
So far on this thread I&#39;ve seen a lot of people shooting down the proof, because they don&#39;t like the theory. Theory first then proof/disproof. That is Science now there are different kinds of proof, and i used two methods: Mathematic (dimensions and capacity of the ark = enough space), and Logic (Kind of Animals + Adaption = greater variety of animals today than what were on the Arc)
As for other Flood myths, they prove nothing but one thing that just about all people groups in the world had a story passed down to them from ages ago:
if we apply Logical Reasoning to this it&#39;s quite possible to believe they all came from one source! if that is true one of the stories has to be closest to the truth... i&#39;m just picking the one I believe in![/b]

Ithink you missed the point. In a real scientific conduct, there is this thing called evidence. Which is conveniently absent if your scientific "theory". I ask again; do you have any factual evidence of the things you claim to be true. Not lines from a book, not a pseudo scientific reasoning; hard, concrete evidence, preferably backed up by a reliable source.

I think not

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 03:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418009')</div>
Erm, if a fish dies, falls to the seabed, fossilises over time and then over more time that same bit of seabed is forced upwards as a mountain range, yes I can see enough disturbance from plate tectonics.

I don&#39;t know what texts are 5000 years old that you&#39;re talking about, but I&#39;ll just say that describing something in immense detail does not make it real. And Julius Caesar is irrelevant to the discussion.

Ok, so all New World animals &#39;adapted&#39; in the past 10,000 years... ok. They&#39;ve not just changed physical attributes (as different races of human have), these animals have developed their genes so independently that they can no longer produce fertile offspring together. Is this really an adaptation?

Your theory is not highly plausible so I have no respect for you trying to prove it. And it is certainly not scientific.

Plus, what is the relevance of the last bit? Man has through his own endeavor created an environment where he can think outside the usual cycle of survival. This is called Civilisation. When man first began farming, and nurtured symbiotic relationships with herds, he reduced the struggle to find food. When he developed weapons and fire and was able to build basic structures, he reduced the struggle to ward off dangerous predators. These advances have developed so far down the line that today, many of us simply walk round the corner to the supermarket for food, and hardly need worry at all about predators. This gives us time to use the creative parts of our brain that would otherwise be reserved for survival. I don&#39;t see how this is a waste of time at all. What&#39;s more, homosexual behavoiur has been observed in other animals too.[/b]

And over how long a time does this dead fish lie on the seabed (without rotting or being eaten) and fossilize?

One thing I have to apologize for is the age of the actual manuscripts, only the originals are dated as from the Time of the Exodus, obviously those are long gone but there are some pretty darn old copies. My Apologies!

I used Julius Caesar as an Example because the conquest of Gaul is well known fact and the records there of are excepted in all fields of science, yet the method of deducing the credibility of a written record show Julius Caesar&#39;s campaign as far inferior to the book of Genesis. (it&#39;s a method to show how close to the original manuscript the record is.) I&#39;m not trying to drag him into this conversation... just a validation of accuracy!

Granted they have changed dramatically but only in some cases, lions and tigers can still interbreed. Jaguars Asian Panthers and Leopards can do the same. A wolf and any common house dog can do the same, and frequently do, and most of these would be fertile as well. Some foxes and Jackals can. Some parrots can. There are many that can and many that can&#39;t. some offspring are fertile some are not. It took man less than 90 years to breed a dog called a bull terrier (to get it to it&#39;s modern look), i think nature can do an even better job, when the necessity is there?

It&#39;s easy to say we don&#39;t need to use the survival instinct as much anymore, but there are really violent Cities with very poor people who still develop into great artist (never to receive a penny for their work)... they need their survival instinct badly, and quite often use it really well. So what if homosexuality&#39;s been observed in other animals how does it benefit us in the evolutionary process. Why is the one species that has evolved enough to prevent it, hellbent on destroying themselves. Why did I marry a women that wears glasses if she could pass those genes on to my children! She&#39;s damn Beautiful but isn&#39;t that a flaw. Why did she marry a man with Epilepsy? Why do we so often take so much care of those who will not be able to contribute to our gene pool!

That is the relevance of "the last bit"

[Steve-o]

Tigers forking lions... Well i&#39;ll be damned. Anyway did Noah&#39;s family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Oct 26 2009, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418015')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418012')
This is Scientific Method:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

You will also see that i call it a plausible scientific theory. Both Evolution and this flood theory have to stop at #3. from there it all becomes speculative. I am trying to show that it was possible.
So far on this thread I&#39;ve seen a lot of people shooting down the proof, because they don&#39;t like the theory. Theory first then proof/disproof. That is Science now there are different kinds of proof, and i used two methods: Mathematic (dimensions and capacity of the ark = enough space), and Logic (Kind of Animals + Adaption = greater variety of animals today than what were on the Arc)
As for other Flood myths, they prove nothing but one thing that just about all people groups in the world had a story passed down to them from ages ago:
if we apply Logical Reasoning to this it&#39;s quite possible to believe they all came from one source! if that is true one of the stories has to be closest to the truth... i&#39;m just picking the one I believe in![/b]

Ithink you missed the point. In a real scientific conduct, there is this thing called evidence. Which is conveniently absent if your scientific "theory". I ask again; do you have any factual evidence of the things you claim to be true. Not lines from a book, not a pseudo scientific reasoning; hard, concrete evidence, preferably backed up by a reliable source.

I think not
[/b][/quote]

All Science starts with a theory... whether it&#39;s based on the known (written and long excepted) or the unknown (brand new) information.

My theory has been around a little longer than yours so let&#39;s play fair and before i go on trying to convince you that math and reason are forms of science, please use an equal or better argument to either disprove The flood, or prove what you believe.

and i&#39;m not using lines from a book except where i quote it, or know it but are too lazy too type, in which case i quickly find it and copy/paste (this i did with the Scientific Method, a method that brought you many things that you are using at this very moment... #4 is where the evidence would come to play by the way, and I believe I did make a reference to the possibility of going further with either argument!)

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418018')</div>
Tigers forking lions... Well i&#39;ll be damned. Anyway did Noah&#39;s family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it&#39;s got something to do with the genes getting weaker.

[Jer1cho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 05:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418018')</div>
Tigers forking lions... Well i&#39;ll be damned. Anyway did Noah&#39;s family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Not only incest, but they had to have one family member of every race on the planet! Unless the sun did some skin damage, and somewhere along the line one of the races squinted their eyes for a long time...

[gingergenius]

ahh but you see Jericho, people &#39;adapt&#39; in a very short space of time.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Oct 26 2009, 07:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418000')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417940')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417938')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')
(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i&#39;ve got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it&#39;s too damn long i type very slow![/b]

You mean it&#39;s not because all of the Earth&#39;s continents have at some time been underwater thanks to plate tectonics? Please do tell your answer to animal twosies...
[/b][/quote]

No it&#39;s not, the movement of tectonic plates are supposed to have taken a little more than the time a egg takes to boil... all these things needed catastrophe not slow movements of Tectonic plates... a global flood seems like a good catastrophe!

Small Quote on well known dimensions for the Arc:

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716-foot-long heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The ark&#39;s gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark&#39;s total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts. By comparing the measurements of the ark it is easy to see that it would be comparable to today&#39;s ocean going vessels. It was probably the largest vessel of its type built until the late 1800&#39;s when metal ships were first constructed.

Also well documented: You could fit two (for &#39;unclean&#39;) and/or seven (for &#39;clean&#39;) of the last "five million" years known different "kinds" (lion and tiger is one kind of animal not true, the definition of the word varies but in truth doesn&#39;t matter. My personal definition is that a kind means animals that can be interbred... that part is opinion though.), into the capacity of the Arc with room to spare! Let&#39;s be clear, if the animal is not here today it either died in the flood or it was hunted to extinction afterwards. Yes I believe it was easy enough to take dinosaurs on the arc just don&#39;t take a bloody Brontosaurus, and take the juveniles, many juveniles in the animal kingdom get along without their mommies so this should not be a difficult thought for scientific minds! God told Noah he&#39;ll bring the Animals to the boat so if in the very long process of building the Arc the animals did not pitch, they died, or if you know biology, all reptiles can swim, maybe just maybe some animals survived the flood? i&#39;m sure the fish did!

Another small Quote:
In reality only a small percentage of the animals would have to be taken on board the ark. The vast majority of the animals that inhabit the earth either live in water and/or do not have "the breath of life."

Now if I may ask did you have any problem with my other answers to your questions?
[/b][/quote]
I have a question. How did Noah, Ham, Sham and Japeth build this massive boat in such a short space of time(a week according to the King James bible)? Also how did 4 men manage to gather all these animals together?

One other thing, how is it that Noah and co. all live to be hundreds and hundreds of years old and this is now impossible for us?
[/b][/quote]
The Bible doesn&#39;t say it took them a week. In the Genesis acco
unt God gives Noah, and mankind, 120 years from His pronouncement of the flood to repent. So, maybe it took him a week, maybe it took him the full 120 years. The account from Judaism, Christianity and Islam also don&#39;t make Noah and his sons out to be the gatherer of the animals. This was done by God himself.
Maximum lifespan in humans is right around 120 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span#In_humans) which is something God established in Genesis.
I think jakovw has brought up some very good points. The problem is discussing these points with people who aren&#39;t scientists. Until I see some credentials at the end of any of our names (including my own) I think we&#39;re going at this whole science approach half-cocked. I&#39;ve yet to see any good links or references other than hearsay from the people saying that the Bible and Science don&#39;t line up. It is not us who are trying to discredit science, only saying that it does line up to God, becuase God is supernatural he can bend the laws of the natural world. You keep searching for complete natural answers, whereas we accept the supernatural. I accept that an all powerful being can manipulate space and time and do whatever the flip he wants. Whereas you lot wish to constrain a diety to fit in your understanding of the universe. We shall never agree.

[feicarsinn]

I&#39;ll tell you what it says(a few translations given, as interpretation is a big thing in the bible):
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."- New International Version

"For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made."-New American Standard bible

In seven days I will send rain to the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. I will wipe off the face of the earth every living creature that I have made."- God&#39;s Word Translation

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. - King James
That&#39;s Genesis 7:4 by the way

Now onto age:
The ages of the men mentioned in Genesis(well as many as I&#39;m bothered mentioning) are:
Adam 930
Seth 912
Enos 905
Cainan 910
Mahalaleel 895
Jared 962
Enoch 365
Methuselah 969
Lamech 777
Noah 950

A bit over the 120 apparently established, no?

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Oct 26 2009, 11:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418026')</div>
I&#39;ll tell you what it says(a few translations given, as interpretation is a big thing in the bible):
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."- New International Version

"For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made."-New American Standard bible

In seven days I will send rain to the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. I will wipe off the face of the earth every living creature that I have made."- God&#39;s Word Translation

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. - King James
That&#39;s Genesis 7:4 by the way

Now onto age:
The ages of the men mentioned in Genesis(well as many as I&#39;m bothered mentioning) are:
Adam 930
Seth 912
Enos 905
Cainan 910
Mahalaleel 895
Jared 962
Enoch 365
Methuselah 969
Lamech 777
Noah 950

A bit over the 120 apparently established, no?[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Long Life Spans: "Adam Lived 930 Years and Then He Died"
New Discoveries in the Biochemistry of Aging Support the Biblical Record

By

Fazale R. Rana, Ph.D.
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Richard Deem, M. S.

"Adam lived 930 years and then he died." The mere assertion that humans could live more than 900 years-as Genesis 5:5 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Genesis%205.5) states-seems, for many people, nothing short of absurdity. The mention of long life spans in Genesis 5 hinders these people from openly exploring the Christian faith. Unable to accept 900-year human life spans, skeptics and others view the Bible as unreliable, a book of human myth rather than divine revelation.

This skepticism towards the long life spans of Genesis 5 is understandable. Tremendous advances have been made and will continue to be made in medical science and technology to conquer many dreaded diseases. The Western world has widespread access to health services, and for most Americans, nutrition is not a vital concern. And yet, the average life span in the U.S. is less than 80 years. Over the last century, human life expectancy has increased, but only by a handful of years. In light of these facts, how can the long life spans described in Genesis 5 conceivably be true? Yet another stumbling block crops up in Genesis 6:3 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Genesis%206.3), which declares that God intervened to shorten man&#39;s life span from about 900 to 120 years. (For a discussion on why God would have allowed man&#39;s long life span only to shorten it later, see The Genesis Question by Hugh Ross.) Even though a maximum life expectancy of about 120 years accords with current data, the abrupt shortening of human life spans creates another hurdle for skeptics. How can this dramatic change in human life spans be scientifically rational?

Recent advances in the biochemistry of aging provide answers to these seemingly intractable problems. Scientists have uncovered several distinct biochemical mechanisms that either cause, or are associated with, senescence (aging). Even subtle changes in cellular chemistry can be responsible for aging, and in some cases, can increase life expectancy by nearly 50%.1, 2 These discoveries point to a number of possible ways that God could have allowed long life spans and then altered human life expectancy- simply by "tweaking" human biochemistry. The recent progress of research in the biochemistry of aging, along with the cosmic radiation caused by the Vela supernova eruption, makes the long life spans of Genesis 5 and the decrease of human life spans at the time of the Flood scientifically plausible.3, 4

Reactive Oxygen SpeciesThe free-radical theory of aging is one of the leading explanations for senescence.5 Free radicals are chemical entities that possess one or more unshared electrons as part of their structural configurations. Because electrons find stability by forming pairs, the unshared electron(s) of free radicals makes them unstable, highly reactive and chemically destructive compounds. When a molecule contains an unshared electron it becomes highly reactive because the unshared electron aggressively "seeks out" another electron with which to pair.

Some free radicals produced inside the cell during the normal course of cellular metabolism are derived from molecular oxygen (O2) and are called reactive oxygen species (ROS).6 Some examples are superoxide (·O2-), the hydroxy free radical (·OH), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Most ROS produced internally and occurring normally in the cell come from the mitochondria—organelles inside the cell that play a central role in harvesting energy.7

According to the free radical theory of aging, the ROS produced in the cell during the natural course of metabolism act randomly and indiscriminately to damage important cell components. For example, in their search for other unshared electrons, ROS attack the molecules that make up the cell&#39;s membrane (lipids), proteins, and DNA.8 Since this damage to cellular components is cumulative, ROS may contribute significantly to the aging process.9

Cells do have mechanisms to counteract many of the harmful effects of ROS. For example, the enzymes superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase hunt the free radicals superoxide and hydrogen peroxide, respectively.10 Cells also have additional antioxidants such as glutathione, peroxidase, and vitamins E and C.11 However, these protective systems are insufficient to prevent all the damage caused by ROS over a cell&#39;s lifetime.

A team of pharmacologists recently demonstrated that the aging effects caused by ROS can be largely subverted by augmenting the cell&#39;s native antioxidant defenses by using enzyme mimetics.12 Enzyme mimetics, (synthetic compounds that imitate the chemistry of enzymes) catalyze (bring about) the same chemical reactions as the enzymes for which they are named. In other words, enzyme mimetics imitate natural enzymes. For example, SOD/catalase enzyme mimetics catalyze the decomposition of superoxide and hydrogen peroxide. The pharmacologists found that administering SOD/catalase enzyme mimetics to a study group of worms (Caenorhabditis elegans)13 can extend the worms&#39; average life span by 44% by providing additional defense against the damage that free radicals cause.

Not only does the worm study help define the role of ROS in the aging process, it also indicates that human life span could be, and in fact, may be lengthened or shortened by this "pharmacological intervention."14

Researchers also have been able to extend the life span of fruit flies by about 40% through similar means. Instead of using enzyme mimetics, scientists manipulated the fruit flies&#39; genes, causing their mitochondria to produce more SOD and catalase.15 The results were similar.

Further evidence that altering SOD and catalase levels can influence life span comes from recent work by researchers at the University of Texas in Houston. These scientists have shown that by targeting SOD, they may be able to selectively kill cancer cells.16

These new discoveries in ROS suggest that one way God could have designed humanity to live for 900 years and then acted to decrease man&#39;s life expectancy at the time of the Flood would be to make subtle changes in the level of SOD and catalase enzyme expression within cells.

Caloric RestrictionCaloric restriction is one of the approaches that researchers have discovered for extending the life span of certain organisms.17 Selectively reducing food intake (calories) by 30 to 70% can extend life span by up to 40% for a wide range of creatures from yeast to mammals. For years, scientists have thought that caloric restriction extends life expectancy by causing a decrease in metabolic rate, which, in turn, leads to reduced production of ROS.18 Recent studies strongly suggest, however, that caloric restriction yields an increase in life span through a biochemical mechanism distinct from the free-radical mechanism.

Researchers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), using yeast as a study organism, recently put in place the final piece of the puzzle to explain that biochemical mechanism. 19, 20 Within chromosomes are genes that code for rRNA. These genes have unique features that, due to normal cellular activity, may cause them to become excised from the chromosome. These excised genes then form individual circular pieces of DNA, (called extrachromosomal DNA circles, or ECs), which self-replicate, accumulate, and compete with the yeast&#39;s genome for vital enzymes and other cellular materials. For this reason, ECs are toxic to cells and decrease longevity in yeast.21

Researchers from MIT, however, have found that the enzyme Sir2 plays a significant role in reducing the accumulation of ECs, thereby extending the life span of yeast. (Sir2 has been found throughout the biological realm, including in humans.22) It is activated when the energy status of a cell drops off—which would occur under conditions of caloric restriction.23 When activated, Sir2 causes the chromosomes to become highly condensed and the genes within the chromosomes to be silenced.24, 25 Because the chromosomes&#39; genes are silenced, the production of ECs diminishes, resulting in an extension of yeast life span. The results for yeast carry broad implications for the human aging process, since Sir2 has been discovered in humans.

The relationship between gene silencing and aging can be understood through a simple analogy. A car driven normally for thirty years will show signs of significant wear and tear, if it is still functioning. A similar car, however, that is driven only to church on Sundays will remain in mint condition even after thirty years. Likewise, a strand of DNA experiencing normal wear and tear can produce toxic ECs, decreasing life span. The enzyme Sir2, however, silences the genes within a chromosome, limits wear and tear on the DNA and prevents ECs from forming, thereby extending the life span of yeast.

The work on ROS and caloric restriction correlates with Genesis 1:29-30 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Genesis%201.29-30), where God prescribes a vegetarian diet for pre-Flood humans. A vegetarian diet not only ensures the consumption of high levels of antioxidants, but also prevents the intake of toxins that accumulate in animal flesh. A vegetarian diet also aids with caloric restriction because the consumption of vegetables yields far fewer calories than does the consumption of the equivalent weight of meat. Through a vegetarian diet, God could have used caloric restriction to help extend pre-Flood life spans.

Another way God could have altered human life spans is through a gene mutation that mimics caloric restriction. Recent work by investigators from the University of Connecticut identified a mutation in fruit flies that disables a gene involved in metabolism.26, 27 The loss of this gene&#39;s activity makes metabolism less efficient. Inefficiency in metabolism means that the organism can&#39;t extract energy from food stuff very effectively. This limits the energy available and, similar to caloric restriction, leads to longer life spans. Fruit fly life spans doubled as a result of this mutation.

The fruit-fly work demonstrates how God could have helped control mankind&#39;s life expectancy by altering the activity of a single gene. Whether He used this method or not, it does represent a simple, viable option. Interestingly, as highlighted by other work on fruit flies, many organisms seem to be genetically programmed to hasten mortality. Recently, scientists have discovered another single gene mutation that leads to long life spans. Though this gene, called the Methuselah gene, has been shown to extend life spans in fruit flies when mutated, the function of this gene, when not mutated, remains unknown.28, 29

Telomere LossAltering telomerase activity is another way God could have acted to regulate human longevity. Telomerase is an enzyme complex that maintains the length of telomeres—the terminal ends DNA strands in chromosomes.30 Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes; one member of each chromosome pair comes from the mother, and the other from the father. Prior to cell division, each chromosome duplicates, and, after cell division, the parent and daughter chromosomes separate from one another.

Telomeres&#39; non-coding repetitive sequences of DNA at the terminal ends of chromosomes maintain chromosome stability. During DNA replication, telomerase functions to maintain telomere length. Without sufficient telomerase activity, telomeres become successively shorter with each round of cell division. If telomeres disappear, chromosomes lose stability and the cell&#39;s ability to replicate is compromised. Thus, loss of telomerase activity and the disappearance of telomeric DNA is associated with aging.31

Telomere length serves as an indicator of health. Thus, scientists use telomere length to assess the health of cloned animals.32 Researchers have been able to extend life spans by introducing telomerase into cultured human cells that lack telomerase activity.33 Cancer cells, considered to be essentially immortal, possess elevated telomerase activity levels.34 Recent research suggests, however, that the relationship between telomere length and cell longevity is even more complex than previously thought.35, 36 (For example, in an environment where elevated radiation significantly increases cancer cell production, higher telomerase activity may actually shorten, rather than lengthen, life spans.) Nonetheless, God could have changed human life expectancy simply by varying telomerase activity. Alternatively, God may have complemented an increase in radiation levels (see discussion of the Vela supernova event) with a reduction in telomerase activity so as to minimize human suffering in the context of shortened life expectancy.

Genome SizeInvestigators from Glasgow University in the United Kingdom have recently uncovered a significant relationship between genome size and longevity.37 The term genome refers to the entire DNA makeup of an organism. Genomes consist of genes—which encode the information needed for the cell to make proteins and structural RNA molecules—and of noncoding DNA.

The Glasgow team surveyed 67 bird species and found that larger genome sizes correlate with longer life spans. Birds are ideal models to characterize the effect of genome size on life expectancy because of the substantial data for bird genome size and longevity. No clear explanation yet exists for why larger genomes lead to longer lifetimes. The scientists who carried out this study have speculated that larger genomes may slow down the cell cycle (the time between cell divisions). Before a cell cycle can be completed— culminating in cell division—the cell&#39;s DNA must be replicated to produce duplicate copies of the genome. The larger the genome, the longer it takes for DNA replication to occur. This longer replication process results in a longer cell cycle and ultimately leads to longer life spans.

The correlation between genome size and longevity is intriguing in light of the Human Genome Project (HGP). Humans have a large genome—three billion base pairs (genetic letters). However, initial estimates from the HGP indicate that the human genome possesses only 28,000 to 120,000 genes.38 This means that noncoding DNA makes up roughly 97% of the human genome. This prompts speculation, with Genesis 5 and 6 in mind, that quite possibly the large size of the human genome—comprised of a large amount of noncoding DNA—may reflect God&#39;s original purpose for man. God might have designed the large human genome to allow life spans of 900 years. According to this suggestion, the noncoding DNA may have performed a critical function at one time. Perhaps God left the human genome intact at the time of the Flood as He acted through astronomical events and other biochemical changes to limit man&#39;s life expectancy. Then the human genome, as observed today, would be a carryover—and a possible testimony to—the time when God purposed for people to live longer.

Alternatively, the human genome may have been even larger before the Flood. Given their relatively large body size and high level of activity, humans live considerably longer than members of other species. This combination of size and activity level may in itself explain humans&#39; large genome size, but the pre-Flood life spans may have required an even larger genome.

Vela SupernovaA major astronomical event provides a partial explanation for how God may have acted to reduce the long pre-Flood human life spans. Cosmic radiation is one of the main factors that limits human life expectancy. The cosmic radiation coming down to Earth has not been uniform through time, and in fact, most of the deadliest cosmic radiation Earth experiences comes from a fairly recent and nearby (1300 light years away) event, the Vela supernova (A supernova is a rare celestial phenomenon, the explosion of most of the material in a star). About 20,000 to 30,000 years ago (roughly the time of the Genesis flood), the Vela supernova erupted.39, 40

Prior to the Vela supernova, only a fraction of the current level of deadly cosmic radiation bathed the Earth. Under these lower radiation conditions (coupled with complementary biochemical adjustments) life spans of up to 900 years might have been possible. Scientists do acknowledge that this higher-level radiation silently bombarding the Earth since Vela plays a significant role in limiting life expectancy. Moreover, a significant radiation event such as Vela would explain the mathematical curve, the gradual, exponential reduction in life spans, from about 900 to 120 years reported in Genesis 11.

Assessing Scientific PlausibilityAdvances in the biology and biochemistry of aging have been remarkable, and, at the same time, they reveal that the aging process is, indeed, complex. Much remains to be learned and discovered about it. Recent discoveries do clearly indicate, however, that aging can result from subtle changes in the invisible realm of cosmic radiation and cellular chemistry. Given the subtly of these changes, investigators are gaining some hope and confidence that in the near future they will be able to slow the human aging process through drug treatment and dietary alteration.

Scientists&#39; success in altering the life span of selected organisms (such as worms, yeast, and fruit flies) and their emerging ability to increase human life expectancy through biochemical manipulation lend scientific plausibility to the long life spans recorded in Genesis 5. If humans with their limited knowledge and power can alter life spans, how much more so can God? He could have used any of four (or more) subtle alterations in human biochemistry to allow for long life spans. He could have used the Vela supernova or other astronomical events, in combination with complementary biochemical changes, to shorten human longevity.

Exactly how God altered human life spans no one knows. However, recent discoveries in the biochemistry of aging continue to build the case for the reliability of Scripture—even of Genesis 5 and 6. Researchers stand on the threshold of additional breakthroughs in understanding the aging process. Further advances are anticipated in the endocrinology and hormonal control of aging, and in deciphering Werner&#39;s syndrome (a disorder that leads to premature aging).41, 42, 43, 44 One can look forward to these and other discoveries in the biochemistry of aging with the confidence that they will continue to lend credibility to the biblical record.[/b]
Also, while your note of 7 days is good, the time period is unknown if one fully reads Genesis Chapter 6. God first states that he will limit mans time on earth to 120 years, then tells Noah about the flood and gives Noah the commands and plan. It then says "Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him." Then your quote takes place. So after Noah had completed his task, of which we really don&#39;t know how long it took (as I stated previously) God gives Noah the 7 day warning (the quote you posted in various translations).

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418020')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418018')
Tigers forking lions... Well i&#39;ll be damned. Anyway did Noah&#39;s family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it&#39;s got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god&#39;s word is &#39;perfect&#39; and &#39;unchangeable/complete&#39;.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he&#39;s excused to bend the rules every now and then ;)

[aligmacd123]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418051')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418020')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418018')
Tigers forking lions... Well i&#39;ll be damned. Anyway did Noah&#39;s family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it&#39;s got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god&#39;s word is &#39;perfect&#39; and &#39;unchangeable/complete&#39;.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he&#39;s excused to bend the rules every now and then ;)
[/b][/quote]
Look at the chronological order of events...where is Leviticus in relation to Genesis?

So God did not bend the rule because it was not there in the first place...

At the time of Noah incest was not a sin. How else would the world be populated?

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418051')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418020')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418018')
Tigers forking lions... Well i&#39;ll be damned. Anyway did Noah&#39;s family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it&#39;s got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god&#39;s word is &#39;perfect&#39; and &#39;unchangeable/complete&#39;.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he&#39;s excused to bend the rules every now and then ;)
[/b][/quote]

God also says that it is the law that makes sin sinful, and he only gave the law to Moses, a long long time there was no written law (none given by him) in the time of Noah. The only reason new questions keep popping up about the bible is because you&#39;re trying to argue something that was not quite what you would call your course major: Theology. Trust me, don&#39;t try to find contradictions in the Bible, you will not (I stand by the KJV, since it is the most accurate translation the others have a number or two wrong.)

Come guys you still haven&#39;t brought any evidence(that cannot be refuted) to the contrary of our Theory and now you&#39;re grasping at straws.
There keeps rising to the surface, in each counter argument, these deeply personal anti-religion and anti-god emotions. Was I not told that these are distasteful, when I did it.

You asked questions, we&#39;ve done our best to answer and all we&#39;re getting back is:
Just give up... we all know you&#39;re wrong... point point point... i don&#39;t respect you...
If you&#39;ll remember correctly I was prepared to talk about the original idea in this thread. If it&#39;s gonna turn into one of those stupid internet mud slinging compo&#39;s please tell me now cause i dig good discussion, but i&#39;m not keen on wasting time...

Once again: Sorry for the harsh words i just thought this forum seemed like it was gonna be a bit different...

P.S. I was just saying Lions and Tigers can produce offspring and have, but only in captivity... my point was the ability is there!

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418056')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418051')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418020')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418018')
Tigers forking lions... Well i&#39;ll be damned. Anyway did Noah&#39;s family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it&#39;s got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god&#39;s word is &#39;perfect&#39; and &#39;unchangeable/complete&#39;.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he&#39;s excused to bend the rules every now and then ;)
[/b][/quote]

God also says that it is the law that makes sin sinful, and he only gave the law to Moses, a long long time there was no written law (none given by him) in the time of Noah. The only reason new questions keep popping up about the bible is because you&#39;re trying to argue something that was not quite what you would call your course major: Theology. Trust me, don&#39;t try to find contradictions in the Bible, you will not (I stand by the KJV, since it is the most accurate translation the others have a number or two wrong.)

Come guys you still haven&#39;t brought any evidence(that cannot be refuted) to the contrary of our Theory and now you&#39;re grasping at straws.
There keeps rising to the surface, in each counter argument, these deeply personal anti-religion and anti-god emotions. Was I not told that these are distasteful, when I did it.

You asked questions, we&#39;ve done our best to answer and all we&#39;re getting back is:
Just give up... we all know you&#39;re wrong... point point point... i don&#39;t respect you...
If you&#39;ll remember correctly I was prepared to talk about the original idea in this thread. If it&#39;s gonna turn into one of those stupid internet mud slinging compo&#39;s please tell me now cause i dig good discussion, but i&#39;m not keen on wasting time...

Once again: Sorry for the harsh words i just thought this forum seemed like it was gonna be a bit different...

P.S. I was just saying Lions and Tigers can produce offspring and have, but only in captivity... my point was the ability is there!
[/b][/quote]

mate, a male lion and female tiger make a Liger, which is infertile (and hence cannot go on to produce more Ligers). a female lion and male Tiger produces Tigons, which are also infertile.

And what&#39;s more, this is not mud slinging. It may appear so simply because for every scientifically proven fact thrown at you, you have a response which is almost always a mere theory. For example, there is evidence and proof that Evolution and continent movement took place beyond &#39;theories&#39;. However you&#39;ve chosen to respond to this by saying &#39;it&#39;s possible that x could have happened&#39;. Maybe, in a completely exclusive situation, it is possible that there was a big ship built 000s of years ago. But it didn&#39;t ride on a major flood, nor did it contain all the animals of the world. That&#39;s impossible.

[aligmacd123]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418065')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418056')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418051')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418020')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418018')
Tigers forking lions... Well i&#39;ll be damned. Anyway did Noah&#39;s family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it&#39;s got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god&#39;s word is &#39;perfect&#39; and &#39;unchangeable/complete&#39;.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he&#39;s excused to bend the rules every now and then ;)
[/b][/quote]

God also says that it is the law that makes sin sinful, and he only gave the law to Moses, a long long time there was no written law (none given by him) in the time of Noah. The only reason new questions keep popping up about the bible is because you&#39;re trying to argue something that was not quite what you would call your course major: Theology. Trust me, don&#39;t try to find contradictions in the Bible, you will not (I stand by the KJV, since it is the most accurate translation the others have a number or two wrong.)

Come guys you still haven&#39;t brought any evidence(that cannot be refuted) to the contrary of our Theory and now you&#39;re grasping at straws.
There keeps rising to the surface, in each counter argument, these deeply personal anti-religion and anti-god emotions. Was I not told that these are distasteful, when I did it.

You asked questions, we&#39;ve done our best to answer and all we&#39;re getting back is:
Just give up... we all know you&#39;re wrong... point point point... i don&#39;t respect you...
If you&#39;ll remember correctly I was prepared to talk about the original idea in this thread. If it&#39;s gonna turn into one of those stupid internet mud slinging compo&#39;s please tell me now cause i dig good discussion, but i&#39;m not keen on wasting time...

Once again: Sorry for the harsh words i just thought this forum seemed like it was gonna be a bit different...

P.S. I was just saying Lions and Tigers can produce offspring and have, but only in captivity... my point was the ability is there!
[/b][/quote]

mate, a male lion and female tiger make a Liger, which is infertile (and hence cannot go on to produce more Ligers). a female lion and male Tiger produces Tigons, which are also infertile.

And what&#39;s more, this is not mud slinging. It may appear so simply because for every scientifically proven fact thrown at you, you have a response which is almost always a mere theory. For example, there is evidence and proof that Evolution and continent movement took place beyond &#39;theories&#39;. However you&#39;ve chosen to respond to this by saying &#39;it&#39;s possible that x could have happened&#39;. Maybe, in a completely exclusive situation, it is possible that there was a big ship built 000s of years ago. But it didn&#39;t ride on a major flood, nor did it contain all the animals of the world. That&#39;s impossible.
[/b][/quote]
Have you seen this "evidence"? Honestly, have you physically seen this evidence?

Yes or no?

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418056')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418051')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418020')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418018')
Tigers forking lions... Well i&#39;ll be damned. Anyway did Noah&#39;s family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it&#39;s got something to do with the genes getting weaker.
[/b][/quote]

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Leviticus 18:6

What god said was prohibited, he forced onto Noah and his family.
Not good planning at all, keeping in mind god&#39;s word is &#39;perfect&#39; and &#39;unchangeable/complete&#39;.

But I guess if he can bend time and so on, he&#39;s excused to bend the rules every now and then wink.gif
[/b][/quote]

God also says that it is the law that makes sin sinful, and he only gave the law to Moses, a long long time there was no written law (none given by him) in the time of Noah. The only reason new questions keep popping up about the bible is because you&#39;re trying to argue something that was not quite what you would call your course major: Theology. Trust me, don&#39;t try to find contradictions in the Bible, you will not (I stand by the KJV, since it is the most accurate translation the others have a number or two wrong.)

Come guys you still haven&#39;t brought any evidence(that cannot be refuted) to the contrary of our Theory and now you&#39;re grasping at straws.
There keeps rising to the surface, in each counter argument, these deeply personal anti-religion and anti-god emotions. Was I not told that these are distasteful, when I did it.

You asked questions, we&#39;ve done our best to answer and all we&#39;re getting back is:
Just give up... we all know you&#39;re wrong... point point point... i don&#39;t respect you...
If you&#39;ll remember correctly I was prepared to talk about the original idea in this thread. If it&#39;s gonna turn into one of those stupid internet mud slinging compo&#39;s please tell me now cause i dig good discussion, but i&#39;m not keen on wasting time...

Once again: Sorry for the harsh words i just thought this forum seemed like it was gonna be a bit different...

P.S. I was just saying Lions and Tigers can produce offspring and have, but only in captivity... my point was the ability is there!
[/b][/quote]

But where do you draw the line on asking genuine questions about a religion and the contents of that holy book, to probing if a god is really real, to doubting what seems to be delusional culture?

I mean how deep does the rabbit hole of off-the-wall explanations go before people stop taking you seriously and become disillusioned?

- Weakened gene pool because of Noah&#39;s incestuous family
- Today&#39;s mythical dragons borne from humans living with dinosaurs back in the day
- Several species fornicating among several other species to RAPIDLY adapt to survive after a long boat trip
- God is timeless, unchanging & perfect (which applies to this word as well) yet his laws conform to our time period.
If he was timeless these laws would of been in place since forever, which has no beginning or end.

That is just some of the theories we have been told.

And you asking me for evidence?

Some of the questions that I&#39;ve asked, that have been conveniently ignored are:
- How is it possible to have a virgin birth?
- How come amputees don&#39;t fall under the &#39;miracle material&#39; category? (yet a speeding fine does)
- How can a human being rise from the dead after 3 days to rise up on a cloud to "heaven"

Until you can answer me these questions like a rational thinking, educated, civilized person of the 21st century, then nothing matters to me personally.

I don&#39;t even know what why I&#39;m posting on this thread anymore, really, we back to square one again.

We (non-religious people) use modern understanding & science to bounce our ideas/beliefs/opinions/perspectives off of; while you (religious people) will use your holy books & religious teachings to bounce your ideas/beliefs/opinions/perspectives off of.
We just not coming from the same place.

[Juan VdS]

This has been one hell of a read. I could have posted my feelings about the matter, but I am not known for my diplomatic approach towards anything that involves religion.

I happen to think that Religion is deeply and inherently attached to the human condition. We human beings want to keep control over everything around us -- every single thing. So over time, when logic has been defied by a determined event, we have resorted to attribute it to divinity. Hundreds of years ago the Egyptians did not know what caused the annual Nile River flood, so they began to think something / someone was pulling the strings within a scope no human had ever ventured into. This has of course been refuted by now, along with thousands of similar phenomenons (although there are millions that are yet to be clarified).

Some people find solace in thinking they will be rewarded in the afterlife; others think that the latter is present in our daily life (ie when somebody talks about "angels"). Some people think there is a mighty being controlling this world with his divinity. Now, I ask you: is the current world not divine enough? Why should we think about resurrection, god(s) and such as miracles? Isn&#39;t life and everything around us not a miracle?

To me, Jesus was a great man. With unshakable principles. But still a man. And that is more divine to me than a fearless, timeless, and omnipresent being.

I won&#39;t say anything about "The Church". The fact that the Pope can&#39;t look at the sky because of his solid gold hat while people in Somalia think of water as a luxury pretty much speaks for itself. :angry:

In short: Personally, I think Religion is what you make of it -- a reason to live for, a reason to die for, a style of life, an explanation that seeks to shred light through all the problems of the world, a link to all those you love and are not physically here anymore...

I can&#39;t share the same feelings. I think that everything has got a feasible explanation -- and if it doesn&#39;t, it will, someday.

I do respect religious people though.

So...
http://www.conpiesycabeza.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Rugby-Pelota1.jpg

Back to the basics! :lol:

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')</div>
There&#39;s been this ongoing thing of we don&#39;t need to disproof your theory because of lack of proof + reason, well that&#39;s not only unscientific but also pretty darn easy now isn&#39;t it...[/b]

Not at all. There is a general refusal to accept it as a thoery at all, and rightly so. Its not a thoery. Why would we give any more credence to your proposition, then we would the the big flying spagetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, or the celestial teapot. I dont really need to disprove any of those as anyone with any sense would understand they are absurd. The same applies to your proposition.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')</div>
I imagine the majority in scientists doesn&#39;t have that great a track record one man shouts the world is round the rest of Science say "It&#39;s Flat!". Don&#39;t drain out the blood to heal a person "Science screamed bleed him! bleed him!". Same goes for gravity[/b]
Ahhh but science never claimed to have a great track record. Thats the point. They acknowledge they dont know and go and try to find out. Wasnt it the church that used to burn people who claimed the earth was round? Kinda funny how you would use that as an example, or any of the others for that matter. Why would you trumpet Sciences achievements?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')</div>
Don&#39;t tell me now there was proof because at first there was none![/b]
Ahhh okay that clears that up then :blink:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')</div>
Then I want to mention Mother Theresa... and from there leave the ball in your camp because yes, surely she didn&#39;t give a rat&#39;s backside for any of those people but only did it because she was scared...[/b]
Man i cant believe you pulled the mother teresa card. Thats just low.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')</div>
(1) despite what we have been taught a few years ago in high school science, the speed of light is only a reasonably normal and stable environment, ever been out to the universe? no neither have i but your boys tell me it&#39;s pretty much not normal or stable... Both Switzerland and America have (in a lab) slowed down and sped up light.[/b]
The speed of light is consistent in a vacuum. 300,000 miles per whatsit. I&#39;m pretty sure, but your right I havent been there, that the universe (well the bits outside of earth) is primarily a vacuum. I&#39;d imagine the standard rules would apply but ............ ahh ****e i forgot about your supernatural dude changing all the rules when it suits him. Either way, your answer is that the world is 10,000 years old and that the speed of light went faster at the start to get the light here?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')</div>
(2) See this comes down to that old interpretation thing again, people think it&#39;s up to them to interpret the bible, it&#39;s not the Bible is a handbook to interpreting itself, The great Dragon (speaking of Lucifer), allready caused a third of the stars (speaking of the Angels) to fall... to earth... This is a theological and not Scientific question if you want more on it I have books, but I&#39;m not wasting my time debating this as a Scientific Question![/b]
Grand so. Glad you cleared that up. Incidently ......... is there somewhere I can reference which bits of the bible are meant to be taken literally, and which bits are not? I&#39;m sure that God in all his wonderful love has set that out clearly at the beginning or maybe in an appendix? You see I always get confused, thinking the bible is the word of god and taking it literally, only for someone better versed in its mysteries to tell me that I&#39;m wrong because this bit or that bit is not meant to be taken literally.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')</div>
(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i&#39;ve got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it&#39;s too damn long i type very slow![/b]
So the whole plate techtonics thing doesnt do it for you no? Mountains being created as a result of pressure, seabeds becoming mountains? The formation of the earth as we know it? blah blah ......... ? The twosies stuff was good. I have to give it another read tomorrow but I was entertained.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')</div>
(4) Not exactly scientific, just kinda stupid... (God is light, guess what there won&#39;t be a sun in heaven either, and there will be no night!)[/b]
So why didnt he set it up like that down here? Seems a bit daft to me going to the trouble of creating a light source when we already had one. I mean if he could just ensure that light was just ....... eh ............. there. Why didnt he? Was he just showing off?

On a side point, why do you bother to engage in Scientific stuff when we can just throw, "man made from handful of dust", "10,000 year old earth" and all the other good stuff from the old testiment.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=417931')</div>
Sorry if this seems a bit agro, but there are two science camps! and it&#39;s by terminology and not science that you try and sink your opponents![/b]
Stop that, there are not two scientific camps. There is a scientific camp and a theological camp. Your fellow Christian so perfectly sets out the reason vs faith debate, or is he some splinter group? Has there been a schism in TRF&#39;s Christian faction?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 26 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418056')</div>
because God is supernatural he can bend the laws of the natural world. You keep searching for complete natural answers, whereas we accept the supernatural. I accept that an all powerful being can manipulate space and time and do whatever the flip he wants. Whereas you lot wish to constrain a diety to fit in your understanding of the universe.[/b]

[O'Rothlain]

I don&#39;t know if there is a true "schism" or not, but I&#39;m done trying to make God fit in the box you&#39;ve laid forth. I posted a rather good, but long post referencing the work of modern science in relation to age in the Bible yet none of the intellectual elite on the other side of the perverbial table have taken the time to read it. So, c&#39;est la vie. Part of being God is being able to do what you want, when you want, how you want to do it without really having to fill out all the proper forms and meet all the special laws and/or requirements. So, if He in His infinite wisdom decides to make all of us grow pogo-sticks out of our asses, then I&#39;m sure as hell not going to go ask Stephen Hawking how it all happend.

[jacovw]

And you asking me for evidence?

Some of the questions that I&#39;ve asked, that have been conveniently ignored are:
- How is it possible to have a virgin birth?
Very Good, this is truly a question that could not be answered without faith, and I have no Issue admitting this! This is definitely theological, because it took a supernatural act... So as a Christian I have to have faith in this, and I will not even attempt to prove it. But that would be a good argument from a purely scientific viewpoint!
- How come amputees don&#39;t fall under the &#39;miracle material&#39; category? (yet a speeding fine does)
This one I did answer and it seems when I said my answer will be ignored that I was right, or maybe you just missed it in which case i&#39;m sorry for the sarcasm...
- How can a human being rise from the dead after 3 days to rise up on a cloud to "heaven"
Same thing as with your first question. Very good. These are the type of things were faith plays a huge role in a Christian&#39;s life. Same as the creation of the world no science there just faith...

My argument was that the Arc does not take any faith when you do decent research. I think it&#39;s probably like I said, this debate is pointless because what happens is this:
We got proof - We can disprove your proof - your disprove is not proof - yes it is - no it isn&#39;t - yes it is - no it isn&#39;t... to infinity!

i too am bored with it!

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 27 2009, 05:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418098')</div>
My argument was that the Arc does not take any faith when you do decent research. I think it&#39;s probably like I said, this debate is pointless because what happens is this:
We got proof - We can disprove your proof - your disprove is not proof - yes it is - no it isn&#39;t - yes it is - no it isn&#39;t... to infinity!

i too am bored with it![/b]

Where ? Serious link please.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Oct 26 2009, 11:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418072')</div>
This has been one hell of a read. I could have posted my feelings about the matter, but I am not known for my diplomatic approach towards anything that involves religion.

I happen to think that Religion is deeply and inherently attached to the human condition. We human beings want to keep control over everything around us -- every single thing. So over time, when logic has been defied by a determined event, we have resorted to attribute it to divinity. Hundreds of years ago the Egyptians did not know what caused the annual Nile River flood, so they began to think something / someone was pulling the strings within a scope no human had ever ventured into. This has of course been refuted by now, along with thousands of similar phenomenons (although there are millions that are yet to be clarified).

Some people find solace in thinking they will be rewarded in the afterlife; others think that the latter is present in our daily life (ie when somebody talks about "angels"). Some people think there is a mighty being controlling this world with his divinity. Now, I ask you: is the current world not divine enough? Why should we think about resurrection, god(s) and such as miracles? Isn&#39;t life and everything around us not a miracle?

To me, Jesus was a great man. With unshakable principles. But still a man. And that is more divine to me than a fearless, timeless, and omnipresent being.

I won&#39;t say anything about "The Church". The fact that the Pope can&#39;t look at the sky because of his solid gold hat while people in Somalia think of water as a luxury pretty much speaks for itself. :angry:

In short: Personally, I think Religion is what you make of it -- a reason to live for, a reason to die for, a style of life, an explanation that seeks to shred light through all the problems of the world, a link to all those you love and are not physically here anymore...

I can&#39;t share the same feelings. I think that everything has got a feasible explanation -- and if it doesn&#39;t, it will, someday.

I do respect religious people though.

So...
http://www.conpiesycabeza.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Rugby-Pelota1.jpg

Back to the basics! :lol:[/b]

Very good point! and i don&#39;t know if you&#39;ve seen my post before this whole science or not can of worms got opened, but it kinda touched on some of what you are saying...

what do you think
Pg 5

[Juan VdS]

Well we seem to agree on that account. I can&#39;t stand people that make donations on public because they do it to somehow vindicate themselves as part of a well functioning society, or they manage to fill a void in their spiritual life.

Religion has indeed played a key role in human advancement. Let&#39;s take as example the atmosphere in Europe in the X century. Poverty, wars between landlords, diseases, etc. Then the fight over the Holy Land commenced. This fight united most kingdoms, regardless of whatever existent fringe between them, to fight for Christianity. The Crusades created a cultural and socioeconomic link between the Western World and the Eastern World. This link would prove itself crucial over time, given it bestowed both "worlds" with the ability to interact and therefore maximize their knowledge in a wide variety of subjects.

Religion does also play a negative role in today&#39;s world, notwithstanding. As a Law & Philosophy student I&#39;ve come across some texts that expose the vile misuse of religion as scapegoat for the most dreadful outrages. A good example would be "The Clash of Civilizations", by Samuel P. Huntington.

Now, on to the Bible. Personally, I don&#39;t like to refer to it as the word of God because it was not written by Jesus, and because it&#39;s been modified a thousand times. The fact that we&#39;re supposed to "interpret" it annoys the heck out of me. I&#39;m more familiar with the Qur&#39;an, where all you read is allegedly the word of Allah. There are millions of flaws in the Bible that over the years have grown from being mere doubts to utterly impossible facts.

Jaco, I&#39;ve got a question for you: Which faith is stronger? The one that possesses no doubts? Or the one professed in spite of all doubts?

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Oct 27 2009, 09:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418135')</div>
Religion has indeed played a key role in human advancement. Let&#39;s take as example the atmosphere in Europe in the X century. Poverty, wars between landlords, diseases, etc. Then the fight over the Holy Land commenced. This fight united most kingdoms, regardless of whatever existent fringe between them, to fight for Christianity. The Crusades created a cultural and socioeconomic link between the Western World and the Eastern World. This link would prove itself crucial over time, given it bestowed both "worlds" with the ability to interact and therefore maximize their knowledge in a wide variety of subjects.[/b]
Thanks for backing up some of my earlier statements.

[darwin_23]

Interesting thread.

While I don&#39;t have a problem with religion in general, I do get annoyed when religion causes otherwise logical people to deny reality. For example a recent survey (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx) showed that almost 50% of Americans don&#39;t &#39;believe&#39; in Evolution. The reason for not &#39;believing&#39; evolution is almost exclusively because of religious beliefs (of course not all Christians deny evolution - it is accepted by the Catholic church!) rather than any logical reasoning.

I also don&#39;t like it when people use religion as an excuse to (a) bomb people (b ) harass gays, midgets, albinos etc.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Oct 27 2009, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418135')</div>
Jaco, I&#39;ve got a question for you: Which faith is stronger? The one that possesses no doubts? Or the one professed in spite of all doubts?[/b]

the one professed in spite of all doubts, but i also believe that those doubts cannot fly in the face of the foundation of that faith. Example: A Christian that profess his faith in the bible but denies that Jesus was the son of (and by definition therefore) God himself, according to that same bible denies the very faith.

So as long as the doubt is not about the "Doctrine" I believe your faith could still be very strong indeed. But doubts about the one in whom you have faith means there is actually no faith at all but a crutch for something else.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 28 2009, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418247')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Oct 27 2009, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418135')
Jaco, I&#39;ve got a question for you: Which faith is stronger? The one that possesses no doubts? Or the one professed in spite of all doubts?[/b]

the one professed in spite of all doubts, but i also believe that those doubts cannot fly in the face of the foundation of that faith. Example: A Christian that profess his faith in the bible but denies that Jesus was the son of (and by definition therefore) God himself, according to that same bible denies the very faith.

So as long as the doubt is not about the "Doctrine" I believe your faith could still be very strong indeed. But doubts about the one in whom you have faith means there is actually no faith at all but a crutch for something else.
[/b][/quote]

faith is being sure of what you hope for, and certain of what we do not see

Faith is not synonymous with believing, it&#39;s beyond it.

[Juan VdS]

Interesting, thanks for the answer. I have always asked people the same question and few have been able to deliver a proper answer. Have you ever read any of Friedrich Nietzsche&#39;s works? Books like "Human, All Too Human", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "On the Genealogy of Morality" pose serious criticism to Christianity in general, albeit in a very creative way.

It&#39;d be nice if we had somebody who professes a religion totally different from Christianism to post here. For example, I know somebody at Uni who is a Muslim, and his views on the history of the world, evolution and such are surprisingly fantastic.

[shazbooger]

Jacovw and Roth, have you read any of the anti-religion stuff that has been published over the past 5 years. Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins etc I&#39;m just wondering, if you have read it, and if so do you just dismiss its contents?

Its not a trick question and I must admit I avoid (like the plague) anything trying to discuss the "science" of christianity. I spose I&#39;d want to know, if someone was to provide you with unquestionable proof that confirmed certain elements of the bible could not be true (e.g. Evolution was fact, the great flood never happened, the planet is greater than 10,000 years old), would it actually make any difference to you. Would you continue professing your belief in the bible? or would something change?

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 28 2009, 09:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418273')</div>
Jacovw and Roth, have you read any of the anti-religion stuff that has been published over the past 5 years. Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins etc I&#39;m just wondering, if you have read it, and if so do you just dismiss its contents?

Its not a trick question and I must admit I avoid (like the plague) anything trying to discuss the "science" of christianity. I spose I&#39;d want to know, if someone was to provide you with unquestionable proof that confirmed certain elements of the bible could not be true (e.g. Evolution was fact, the great flood never happened, the planet is greater than 10,000 years old), would it actually make any difference to you. Would you continue professing your belief in the bible? or would something change?[/b]
It&#39;s like I&#39;ve stated previously. I refuse to limit God to the understanding of the mind Stephen Hawking. If God is who the Bible says He is, He does not abide within the realm of our reality. Being above the natural laws defines Supernatural. If God is a Supernatural being, then why do we keep trying to define Him by nature. This is why the church has always called things "mysteries." I cannot explain, nor defend scientifically every iota of scripture. This is why I&#39;ve made comment after comment about faith. These mysteries is where my faith steps up and fills the gap. So, for me it&#39;s more of an acceptance of the Supernatural, saying that there are somethings that happen in this world that truly cannot be explained. Does this mean that we, religious people, hinder the work of science? No, the church did that in the past and it was a mistake (one they have owned up to). I believe in evolution to an extent. I do not believe we all came from a single cell, etc.... We, all organisms, over time evolve, but I don&#39;t think there is much plausible evidence for the drastic changes that everyone goes on about. Those missing links are theories.

[Jer1cho]

I still think that the only issue that remains, is if we had to &#39;come from somewhere&#39;, then how does that rule not apply to God? If he was &#39;just there&#39; from the beginning of time, then how can we, and everything that exists, not just &#39;be there&#39;?

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Oct 28 2009, 12:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418290')</div>
I still think that the only issue that remains, is if we had to &#39;come from somewhere&#39;, then how does that rule not apply to God? If he was &#39;just there&#39; from the beginning of time, then how can we, and everything that exists, not just &#39;be there&#39;?[/b]
Natural law vs. Supernatural being. The term supernatural should be explanatory enough to convey the idea of something to which the rules of the universe do not apply.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Oct 28 2009, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418254')</div>
Interesting, thanks for the answer. I have always asked people the same question and few have been able to deliver a proper answer. Have you ever read any of Friedrich Nietzsche&#39;s works? Books like "Human, All Too Human", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "On the Genealogy of Morality" pose serious criticism to Christianity in general, albeit in a very creative way.

It&#39;d be nice if we had somebody who professes a religion totally different from Christianism to post here. For example, I know somebody at Uni who is a Muslim, and his views on the history of the world, evolution and such are surprisingly fantastic.[/b]

I haven&#39;t, but I&#39;ve heard a lot on it. Like the titles though, and i think there in the first one is where i find faith easy. People are just all too Human :) .
Now I&#39;m not one of those bitter "everyone&#39;s out to get me" types, but I&#39;ve learned even in my short lifespan that every human, no matter how great, will let you down at some stage... now sometimes it feels like god does as well, like when my little girl is sick, but it&#39;s hard to explain but he always seems to flip the coin so my wife and i stand at the end of it all and go, why don&#39;t we just trust him from the beginning. have you ever read the book Christianity: A ready defense, by Josh McDowell. He was an Agnostic who set out to intellectually refute Christianity and instead became one through his own research. There&#39;s another journalists who did the same but i can&#39;t remember his name.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 28 2009, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418273')</div>
Jacovw and Roth, have you read any of the anti-religion stuff that has been published over the past 5 years. Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins etc I&#39;m just wondering, if you have read it, and if so do you just dismiss its contents?

Its not a trick question and I must admit I avoid (like the plague) anything trying to discuss the "science" of christianity. I spose I&#39;d want to know, if someone was to provide you with unquestionable proof that confirmed certain elements of the bible could not be true (e.g. Evolution was fact, the great flood never happened, the planet is greater than 10,000 years old), would it actually make any difference to you. Would you continue professing your belief in the bible? or would something change?[/b]

Very interesting word
It&#39;s like undisputed. if you say undisputed or unquestionable it means nobody can even attempt a question at it! This applies to facts... Nobody Questions weather fire is hot, ice is cold, turd stinks or gravity hurts when you&#39;re big. these are facts that cannot be denied even if you tried. Therefore you will find no sane person on earth who tries... No one ever denies anything that is unquestionable! And so, you see, that which has people for and against it, can always be disputed, and is never fact.

My final word on the science thing!

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 28 2009, 12:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418296')</div>
have you ever read the book Christianity: A ready defense, by Josh McDowell. He was an Agnostic who set out to intellectually refute Christianity and instead became one through his own research. There&#39;s another journalists who did the same but i can&#39;t remember his name.[/b]
CS Lewis is another good example for you.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 28 2009, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418285')</div>
It&#39;s like I&#39;ve stated previously. I refuse to limit God to the understanding of the mind Stephen Hawking. If God is who the Bible says He is, He does not abide within the realm of our reality. Being above the natural laws defines Supernatural. If God is a Supernatural being, then why do we keep trying to define Him by nature. This is why the church has always called things "mysteries." I cannot explain, nor defend scientifically every iota of scripture. This is why I&#39;ve made comment after comment about faith. These mysteries is where my faith steps up and fills the gap. So, for me it&#39;s more of an acceptance of the Supernatural, saying that there are somethings that happen in this world that truly cannot be explained. Does this mean that we, religious people, hinder the work of science? No, the church did that in the past and it was a mistake (one they have owned up to). I believe in evolution to an extent. I do not believe we all came from a single cell, etc.... We, all organisms, over time evolve, but I don&#39;t think there is much plausible evidence for the drastic changes that everyone goes on about. Those missing links are theories.[/b]

Ok, this is a post I finally can&#39;t argue with. We&#39;ve reached the point where we can agree to disagree... I/ others have constantly been frustrated by the poxy Christian &#39;versions&#39; of science put forward in this topic. I&#39;m sure the religion team have felt they were throwing answers at brick walls too.

The bolded sentence I think underlines the place religion (in my opinion) should have in the world. It is the place where the atheist vs. religion camps can no longer solidly fight, because no one has any evidence to explain the &#39;unexplainable&#39;, so both sides are putting forth guesswork. There is no point in sending out ludicrous &#39;facts&#39; in order to prove the Bible. Facts are what define atheism; it&#39;s futile to fight us on our strongest points. However, we have no positive answer for &#39;how was the universe created?&#39; and hundreds of other questions.

So here, the Atheist must accept that he has no definite answer. The believer will have an answer proven by nothing but faith. Here is where we can shake hands and agree that one is tomAto and another is tomAAto and neither is certainly right nor certainly wrong.

[Bullitt]

I quite Brutal Legends biblical story (http://brutallegend.wikia.com/wiki/Artifact_of_Legend), I think I&#39;ll believe in that from now on!

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 29 2009, 07:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418309')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 28 2009, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418285')
I cannot explain, nor defend scientifically every iota of scripture. This is why I&#39;ve made comment after comment about faith. These mysteries is where my faith steps up and fills the gap. So, for me it&#39;s more of an acceptance of the Supernatural, saying that there are somethings that happen in this world that truly cannot be explained.[/b]

Ok, this is a post I finally can&#39;t argue with. We&#39;ve reached the point where we can agree to disagree... I/ others have constantly been frustrated by the poxy Christian &#39;versions&#39; of science put forward in this topic. I&#39;m sure the religion team have felt they were throwing answers at brick walls too.

The bolded sentence I think underlines the place religion (in my opinion) should have in the world. It is the place where the atheist vs. religion camps can no longer solidly fight, because no one has any evidence to explain the &#39;unexplainable&#39;, so both sides are putting forth guesswork. There is no point in sending out ludicrous &#39;facts&#39; in order to prove the Bible. Facts are what define atheism; it&#39;s futile to fight us on our strongest points. However, we have no positive answer for &#39;how was the universe created?&#39; and hundreds of other questions.

So here, the Atheist must accept that he has no definite answer. The believer will have an answer proven by nothing but faith. Here is where we can shake hands and agree that one is tomAto and another is tomAAto and neither is certainly right nor certainly wrong.
[/b][/quote]
No, you&#39;ve got to do better than that.

The mystery is love. That is all that matters, and sod the Beginning of the Universe issue.

How does science approach that one? It simply doesn&#39;t, because it&#39;s insufficient.

Of course you could bang on about some bogus scientific discipline like ... uuuh ... evolutionary psychology, but you&#39;d have to be some nutter who relies on faith over evidence to pretend that makes any sense.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 29 2009, 07:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418309')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 28 2009, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418285')
I cannot explain, nor defend scientifically every iota of scripture. This is why I&#39;ve made comment after comment about faith. These mysteries is where my faith steps up and fills the gap. So, for me it&#39;s more of an acceptance of the Supernatural, saying that there are somethings that happen in this world that truly cannot be explained.[/b]

Ok, this is a post I finally can&#39;t argue with. We&#39;ve reached the point where we can agree to disagree... I/ others have constantly been frustrated by the poxy Christian &#39;versions&#39; of science put forward in this topic. I&#39;m sure the religion team have felt they were throwing answers at brick walls too.

The bolded sentence I think underlines the place religion (in my opinion) should have in the world. It is the place where the atheist vs. religion camps can no longer solidly fight, because no one has any evidence to explain the &#39;unexplainable&#39;, so both sides are putting forth guesswork. There is no point in sending out ludicrous &#39;facts&#39; in order to prove the Bible. Facts are what define atheism; it&#39;s futile to fight us on our strongest points. However, we have no positive answer for &#39;how was the universe created?&#39; and hundreds of other questions.

So here, the Atheist must accept that he has no definite answer. The believer will have an answer proven by nothing but faith. Here is where we can shake hands and agree that one is tomAto and another is tomAAto and neither is certainly right nor certainly wrong.
[/b][/quote]
Well, at least we&#39;ve got somewhere with all of this. Maybe I finally explained my faith point better, but to be honest, it&#39;s what I&#39;ve been getting at for several pages, albeit maybe not so clearly. I will say, from a Historical standpoint the Bible is more accurate that people give it credit for. I&#39;m deep into the History department at my University which is full of Atheists/Agnostics. However, the one thing they will say, is that from a historical viewpoint the bible has been hard to discredit. So, I&#39;ll rest my case with this: Jericoh, thought to be made up biblical account, found and proved real, with evidence showing a great catastrophe that destroyed the walls. Whether or not you want to say earthquake or God, the bible was proved right. I&#39;m not going to go on and on, just that We do have some facts, we&#39;re not all just hocus pocus.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 28 2009, 02:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418315')</div>
No, you&#39;ve got to do better than that.

The mystery is love. That is all that matters, and sod the Beginning of the Universe issue.

How does science approach that one? It simply doesn&#39;t, because it&#39;s insufficient.

Of course you could bang on about some bogus scientific discipline like ... uuuh ... evolutionary psychology, but you&#39;d have to be some nutter who relies on faith over evidence to pretend that makes any sense.[/b]
I agree...not a fan of evolutionary psychology either. Love is a mystery, a choice and something that can truly change the world.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 28 2009, 06:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418298')</div>
if you say undisputed or unquestionable it means nobody can even attempt a question at it! This applies to facts... Nobody Questions weather fire is hot, ice is cold, turd stinks or gravity hurts when you&#39;re big. these are facts that cannot be denied even if you tried. Therefore you will find no sane person on earth who tries... No one ever denies anything that is unquestionable! And so, you see, that which has people for and against it, can always be disputed, and is never fact.[/b]
You didnt answer the question. If something was defined as fact (clearly and unquestionably) and it disproved the bible, would you pay attention or just ignore it? Roth has already said he&#39;ll ignore it in favour of his belief in the supernatural. I presume your the same?

Oh ..... and your point about a dispute meaning something is not fact is just wrong. People (well religions people) argued that the world was flat not too long ago while the fact remained that the world was not flat at all. It never had been. One party being wrong does not stop a fact from being a fact.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 28 2009, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418285')</div>
If God is a Supernatural being, then why do we keep trying to define Him by nature. This is why the church has always called things "mysteries."[/b]
So regardless of what Science comes up with, your just going to ignore every fact that contradicts the bible, and teach your kids to do the same.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 28 2009, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418285')</div>
Does this mean that we, religious people, hinder the work of science? ............................. We, all organisms, over time evolve, but I don&#39;t think there is much plausible evidence for the drastic changes that everyone goes on about. Those missing links are theories.[/b]
A complete contradiction there. Does religion hinder Science? You say No, but in the same breath you question whether Evolution is fact or not. Bull****.

Do you both agree with teaching Creationism to children as a form of Science?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 28 2009, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418309')</div>
so both sides are putting forth guesswork............................. Here is where we can shake hands and agree that one is tomAto and another is tomAAto and neither is certainly right nor certainly wrong.[/b]
Are you for real? They are happy to state that the supernatural superceeds the factual.

Factually they have absolutely nothing to back it up yet yet when questioned about these, they throw a form of Pseudoscience out to cast doubt on a solid scientific thoery as if that is all that is required. If that doesnt work they just say its because hes supernatural and your going to hell.

For example, it was reported today that scientists have found a star so far away it has taken 13billion years for its light to reach us (Source Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1029/1224257604854.html)). Now the laws of the universe (that god supposedly created) state that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. The majority of the universe would appear to be a vacuum yet the answer I received was that I havent been out in the universe so it might not be a vacuum, and that scientists have discovered ways to speed up or slow down light (13 billions years vs 10,000 years! Come on!).

When asked about the great flood they conceptualise building a huge boat and they actually have a thesis on the two by twosies of animals. Again, even if its disproven they can just sat that their god is supernatural and made it all happen that way.

44% of Americans believe in Creationist views on the world. They believe it should be thought as a form of science. There is nothing factual about their beliefs. Stop conceeding to them.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 05:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')</div>
So regardless of what Science comes up with, your just going to ignore every fact that contradicts the bible, and teach your kids to do the same.[/b]
No, it's not ignoring science. It's saying God is beyond it. If God by supernatural powers makes a man levitate or say "walk on water" and I wholeheartedly believe it, does it mean that I don't believe in gravity? No, I totally believe in flippin' gravity, it means that I believe that Natural Laws Do Not Apply To The Supernatural.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 05:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')</div>
A complete contradiction there. Does religion hinder Science? You say No, but in the same breath you question whether Evolution is fact or not. Bull****.[/b]
I say that religious people shouldn't hinder the work of science. I don't question evolution, I question how far people try to apply it without proof, just like you question my ideas of faith.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 05:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')</div>
Do you both agree with teaching Creationism to children as a form of Science?[/b]
Creation and the Big Bang are both theories. One is a religious theory that dominates a lot of western thought, the other is a scientific theory that has come to be creationisms main rival. They are theories...end of the story. It's not it's own branch of science, it's a theory about how the world began, one that the world has believed for a much greater time than the big bang. I think neither should be taught as absolutes, but both referenced as theories for the beginning of existance as we know it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 05:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')</div>
They are happy to state that the supernatural superceeds the factual.[/b]
If the supernatural exists, then by it's own name it "super"ceeds the <strike>factual</strike> natural.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 05:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')</div>
Factually they have absolutely nothing to back it up yet yet when questioned about these, they throw a form of Pseudoscience out to cast doubt on a solid scientific thoery as if that is all that is required. If that doesnt work they just say its because hes supernatural and your going to hell.

For example, it was reported today that scientists have found a star so far away it has taken 13billion years for its light to reach us (Source Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1029/1224257604854.html)). Now the laws of the universe (that god supposedly created) state that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. The majority of the universe would appear to be a vacuum yet the answer I received was that I havent been out in the universe so it might not be a vacuum, and that scientists have discovered ways to speed up or slow down light (13 billions years vs 10,000 years! Come on!).

When asked about the great flood they conceptualise building a huge boat and they actually have a thesis on the two by twosies of animals. Again, even if its disproven they can just sat that their god is supernatural and made it all happen that way.

44% of Americans believe in Creationist views on the world. They believe it should be thought as a form of science. There is nothing factual about their beliefs. Stop conceeding to them.[/b]
You just come off as bitter and angry, no offense. I honestly like you, and usually have a laugh at what you write here on TRF, so don't let this whole thread of convo spoil the rest of it. What you and I generally disagree on is the acceptance of the supernatural, ie. God being infinite, omnipresent, all powerful. Creationists argue whether or not the universe or world was made in a literal 7 days, or if that was a symbolic statement representing 7 periods or whatever. I'm not going to do that with you. To me it doesn't matter if God farted and we were. What I do know is that I have seen too much in my life to not believe that a greater power started all of this. I don't know how, and I don't fully know why. In the areas where I don't know the how's and the why's my faith in the God of Abraham steps in. So, no, you can't empircally argue with that. It is the essence of faith and any conversation we have about it will just frustrate you.

[gingergenius]

Log, I honestly don&#39;t agree with 90% of what Roth says, but at least he&#39;s conceded that what he believes is &#39;unprovable&#39;. To me, that indicates that he has made a personal decision and so nothing we say is going to change him. I respect him saying that far more than trying to argue a case for the &#39;unprovable&#39; like he and especially jacouw have done.

The majority of enlightened people accept the findings of science. For the rest, we must allow them to make their own decisions, hoping that one day they will become enlightened. The ones who argue back must be debated to submission.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 29 2009, 11:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418479')</div>
The majority of enlightened people accept the findings of science. For the rest, we must allow them to make their own decisions, hoping that one day they will become enlightened. The ones who argue back must be debated to submission.[/b]
...as we hope you also become enlightened. :lol: :D
It is amusing that you use the word enlighten as the founders of the Enlightenment were all Diests...uhm and Darwin was a Diest. So, it&#39;s not just us. It&#39;s not as if all of science were screaming that there is no God, just a loud portion of it.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 29 2009, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418478')</div>
No, it&#39;s not ignoring science. It&#39;s saying God is beyond it. If God
I say that religious people shouldn&#39;t hinder the work of science. I don&#39;t question evolution, I question how far people try to apply it without proof, just like you question my ideas of faith.[/b]
Grand so, but when we absolute proof is provided, you can pull the supernatural card. Reason vs Faith. Ginger is right though (maybe you said it too), its pointless to discussed it any further.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 29 2009, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418478')</div>
You just come off as bitter and angry, no offense. I honestly like you, and usually have a laugh at what you write here on TRF, so don&#39;t let this whole thread of convo spoil the rest of it.[/b]
This is the internet. Nothing is personal on the internet. Unless someone from the SH disses Brian O&#39;Driscoll. Then I&#39;ll desert storm their ass (or was it operation Iraqi freedom?)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 29 2009, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418478')</div>
What you and I generally disagree on is the acceptance of the supernatural[/b]
Totally. But the main thing that frustrates me is when Christians push their views out into the mainstream. The Science thing drives me nuts alright as pretty much every christian science thoery has been disproven, or is so far fetched that it actually cannot be disproven, yet a president of the most dangerous country in the world cannot be elected unless he shares those views and pampers to that political lobby.

At the same time, by accepting your views, and allowing religious freedom we enable a far more dangerous view coming from the middle east.

Islam is a violent religion and a danger to all civilised society. Discuss :)

or

Hitler would have been nice if he wasnt a Christian! Discuss :)

[feicarsinn]

Originally posted by Logorrhea
This is the internet. Nothing is personal on the internet. Unless someone from the SH disses Brian O&#39;Driscoll. Then I&#39;ll desert storm their ass (or was it operation Iraqi freedom?)

WHAT!? WHO DISSED BRIAN????!!!ONE11!!!!

[O'Rothlain]

Islam isn&#39;t a threat...Radical Islam is a threat.
Christianity isn&#39;t a threat...Radical Christianity is a threat.
Socialism isn&#39;t a threat...Radical Socialism is a threat.
Capitalism isn&#39;t a threat...Radical Capitalism is a threat.

Do you see the trend? Christians put their beliefs out into the public because they dictate our morals. We, as well as Islamists, have a strong sense of right and wrong, good and bad. The state&#39;s role (and now we&#39;re drifting into a completely new genre for this debate) is to provide freedom, and protect property and something about the pursuit of happiness or something. These concepts which truly came into fruition during the period of enlightenment create a protective umbrella. One which allows religious freedom, but at the same time doesn&#39;t censor or control religion and vice versa. Having said that, the morals of the majority dictate the law of the land. If law is interpretive then each government will be different, and will evolve based on the region and people (I believe I&#39;m vaguely referencing Rousso(sp) or someone). So, yes, in America, Christian morals and principlas dominate the landscape. It&#39;s no different in the rest of the Western World. Just because you don&#39;t believe in God, Christ or any of that doesn&#39;t mean your sense of right and wrong, good and bad hasn&#39;t been drastically influenced by those things. Where you and I will disagree is on topics that have recently popped up like abortion, stem cell research, etc... It is these such topics that I will pull the faith card. I don&#39;t think there is anything radical about it. Radicalism would be us censoring all media (which I&#39;m against), making women dress a certain way (which I&#39;m against, I like low cut tops and short skirts on girls...well, not all of them, but the attractive ones...maybe we can make them all dress like that?), starting an inquisition, forming a state church. There is a difference with religious people using their voting power to promote their morals and a radical take over like what happened in Iran.

[Bullitt]

There&#39;s no such thing as Socialism or Capitalism without the "radical" prefix.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Oct 29 2009, 12:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418503')</div>
There&#39;s no such thing as Socialism or Capitalism without the "radical" prefix.[/b]
That&#39;s not true. One Example: Canada, the least radical of all nation-states.

[Bullitt]

Canada doesn&#39;t even know what continent it&#39;s on, let alone what political stance it carries.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 29 2009, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418482')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 29 2009, 11:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418479')
The majority of enlightened people accept the findings of science. For the rest, we must allow them to make their own decisions, hoping that one day they will become enlightened. The ones who argue back must be debated to submission.[/b]
...as we hope you also become enlightened. :lol: :D
It is amusing that you use the word enlighten as the founders of the Enlightenment were all Diests...uhm and Darwin was a Diest. So, it&#39;s not just us. It&#39;s not as if all of science were screaming that there is no God, just a loud portion of it.
[/b][/quote]

I didn&#39;t use a capital E for enlightened. It&#39;s my own definition... you &#39;see the light&#39;. In other words, many of us are brought up in a religious background and are taught certain things about the world. As our minds develop independently, we can begin to have opinions of our own, and not of society or our parents. Very few people I know are devout, yet at the same time very few of them call themselves atheists or even agnostics. They occupy a grey area through fear (eg. Pascal) or familiarity.

My definition for enlightened people is those who have accepted their insignificance: that when they die they will rot; that the concept of &#39;soul&#39; is fictitious; that their life has no standardised meaning at all. For many people in the grey area, this is too much to bear thinking of.

For the devout, religion is more than a meaning for existance. But again, their only irrefutable argument is that there are &#39;supernatural levels&#39;. And they have no proof of this. So if they argue their case, they are far from enlightened and as I said, must be beaten back. If they hold their views but accept that they cannot argue for them, then they are with the enlightened.

It&#39;s all about the thought process that goes into making the choice.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 29 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418511')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 29 2009, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418482')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 29 2009, 11:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418479')
The majority of enlightened people accept the findings of science. For the rest, we must allow them to make their own decisions, hoping that one day they will become enlightened. The ones who argue back must be debated to submission.[/b]
...as we hope you also become enlightened. :lol: :D
It is amusing that you use the word enlighten as the founders of the Enlightenment were all Diests...uhm and Darwin was a Diest. So, it&#39;s not just us. It&#39;s not as if all of science were screaming that there is no God, just a loud portion of it.
[/b][/quote]

I didn&#39;t use a capital E for enlightened. It&#39;s my own definition... you &#39;see the light&#39;. In other words, many of us are brought up in a religious background and are taught certain things about the world. As our minds develop independently, we can begin to have opinions of our own, and not of society or our parents. Very few people I know are devout, yet at the same time very few of them call themselves atheists or even agnostics. They occupy a grey area through fear (eg. Pascal) or familiarity.

My definition for enlightened people is those who have accepted their insignificance: that when they die they will rot; that the concept of &#39;soul&#39; is fictitious; that their life has no standardised meaning at all. For many people in the grey area, this is too much to bear thinking of.

For the devout, religion is more than a meaning for existance. But again, their only irrefutable argument is that there are &#39;supernatural levels&#39;. And they have no proof of this. So if they argue their case, they are far from enlightened and as I said, must be beaten back. If they hold their views but accept that they cannot argue for them, then they are with the enlightened.

It&#39;s all about the thought process that goes into making the choice.
[/b][/quote]
The assumption being that we religious almost put no thought into our "faith." I agree, there a lot of people that fall into that category. However there are those of us that have gone through an immense journey to come to accept the "faith of our fathers." I happen to be one of those. Sent to the finest religious institutions for my education, brought up in a family full of pastors and missionaries. I definitely don&#39;t have the same beliefs my family does. I&#39;ve gone through a lot of criticism for that, too. I&#39;m not the only one, I know a lot of people with similar stories. Also, the Jesuits... How do you factor a group like them? One that promotes education, yet is still religious? Where would western education be without them?

[aligmacd123]

We are all religious people if we like it or not. Religion is a word thrown around a lot but the real meaning of religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The meaning of the word Religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion).
We all have our own views and sometimes many people come together with similar views. This is what is known as "organised religion". These are Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism etc.

There are questions that keep coming back to me. "Why are we trying to ditch God? Why are we trying to disprove something that ultimately has a positive influence on so many people&#39;s lives?" and finally "Why are we so arrogant that we can&#39;t accept something bigger than ourselves?"

Maybe if we answer these questions we might actually get somewhere

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')</div>
A complete contradiction there. Does religion hinder Science? You say No, but in the same breath you question whether Evolution is fact or not. Bull****.[/b]
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It&#39;s a theory. That&#39;s why we have the Theory of Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
This powerful explanatory and predictive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power) theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research [and it&#39;s funding] and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity) on Earth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cit...2006Statement-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cite_note-IAP2006Statement-8)[/b]

Italics mine, because I&#39;m cynical (but not a cynic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic)).

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418527')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')
A complete contradiction there. Does religion hinder Science? You say No, but in the same breath you question whether Evolution is fact or not. Bull****.[/b]
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It&#39;s a theory. That&#39;s why we have the Theory of Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
This powerful explanatory and predictive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power) theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research [and it&#39;s funding] and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity) on Earth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cit...2006Statement-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cite_note-IAP2006Statement-8)[/b]

Italics mine, because I&#39;m cynical (but not a cynic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic)).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory.

[darwin_23]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 30 2009, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418528')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418527')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')
A complete contradiction there. Does religion hinder Science? You say No, but in the same breath you question whether Evolution is fact or not. Bull****.[/b]
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It&#39;s a theory. That&#39;s why we have the Theory of Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
This powerful explanatory and predictive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power) theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research [and it&#39;s funding] and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity) on Earth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cit...2006Statement-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cite_note-IAP2006Statement-8)[/b]

Italics mine, because I&#39;m cynical (but not a cynic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic)).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory.
[/b][/quote]

Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).

EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418531')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 30 2009, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418528')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418527')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')
A complete contradiction there. Does religion hinder Science? You say No, but in the same breath you question whether Evolution is fact or not. Bull****.[/b]
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It&#39;s a theory. That&#39;s why we have the Theory of Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
This powerful explanatory and predictive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power) theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research [and it&#39;s funding] and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity) on Earth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cit...2006Statement-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cite_note-IAP2006Statement-8)[/b]

Italics mine, because I&#39;m cynical (but not a cynic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic)).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory.
[/b][/quote]

Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).

EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OO-Darwin.

The theory is used to explain how the facts are so. But it has no bearing on the origin of life.

A theory is a theory. What&#39;s the difference between a theory and a theorem?

I&#39;ll be satisfied when mathematicians get to the bottom of it all, because they deal in ultimate truth. I&#39;m not holding my breath.

[darwin_23]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418533')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418531')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 30 2009, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418528')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418527')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')
A complete contradiction there. Does religion hinder Science? You say No, but in the same breath you question whether Evolution is fact or not. Bull****.[/b]
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It&#39;s a theory. That&#39;s why we have the Theory of Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
This powerful explanatory and predictive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power) theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research [and it&#39;s funding] and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity) on Earth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cit...2006Statement-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cite_note-IAP2006Statement-8)[/b]

Italics mine, because I&#39;m cynical (but not a cynic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic)).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory (scientific or otherwise).
[/b][/quote]

Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).

EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OODarwin.

A theory is a theory. What&#39;s the difference between a theory and a theorem?
[/b][/quote]

Indeed you have linked it, my apologies. You are correct the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life - that is abiogenesis.

A theorem is a mathematical statement proven to be true - it is not related to a theory.

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418535')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418533')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418531')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 30 2009, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418528')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418527')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')
A complete contradiction there. Does religion hinder Science? You say No, but in the same breath you question whether Evolution is fact or not. Bull****.[/b]
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It&#39;s a theory. That&#39;s why we have the Theory of Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
This powerful explanatory and predictive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power) theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research [and it&#39;s funding] and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity) on Earth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cit...2006Statement-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cite_note-IAP2006Statement-8)[/b]

Italics mine, because I&#39;m cynical (but not a cynic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic)).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory (scientific or otherwise).
[/b][/quote]

Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).

EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OODarwin.

A theory is a theory. What&#39;s the difference between a theory and a theorem?
[/b][/quote]

Indeed you have linked it, my apologies. You are correct the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life - that is abiogenesis.

A theorem is a mathematical statement proven to be true - it is not related to a theory.
[/b][/quote]
Some of our resident evolutionists argue as if their theory were a theorem.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. We NEED a thread on this so everyone can get irritated all over again.

[darwin_23]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418537')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418535')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418533')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418531')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 30 2009, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418528')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418527')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418412')
A complete contradiction there. Does religion hinder Science? You say No, but in the same breath you question whether Evolution is fact or not. Bull****.[/b]
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It&#39;s a theory. That&#39;s why we have the Theory of Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
This powerful explanatory and predictive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power) theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research [and it&#39;s funding] and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity) on Earth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cit...2006Statement-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cite_note-IAP2006Statement-8)[/b]

Italics mine, because I&#39;m cynical (but not a cynic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic)).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory (scientific or otherwise).
[/b][/quote]

Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).

EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OODarwin.

A theory is a theory. What&#39;s the difference between a theory and a theorem?
[/b][/quote]

Indeed you have linked it, my apologies. You are correct the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life - that is abiogenesis.

A theorem is a mathematical statement proven to be true - it is not related to a theory.
[/b][/quote]
Some of our resident evolutionists argue as if their theory were a theorem.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. We NEED a thread on this so everyone can get irritated all over again.
[/b][/quote]

Something doesn&#39;t have to be a theorem to be true - are you not convinced about gravity because it cannot be proven mathematically? The evidence for biological evolution is as overwhelming as the evidence for gravity. I will note that most people misinterpret what the term evolution actual means - biological evolution is simply the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. That is what is considered fact. Confusion arises when people use the term differently i.e as an explanation the origin of life on earth (technically this is abiogenesis), or even the origin of the universe (not the Big Bang Theory as many people think - this says nothing about the origin of the universe, but rather the expansion of the universe after its initially cause, hypotheses for the origin of the universe include chaotic inflation or various other explanations based on string theory).

[gingergenius]

OK, so we have a &#39;Theory of Evolution&#39;. On its own, one man looking at some finches and saying &#39;we come from apes&#39; means little.

However, how many bits of actual science back this up? We&#39;ve got mitachondrial DNA evidence linking us all back to a woman in Africa over 10,000 years ago. Evidence tells us that ourselves and the chimpanzee are 94% related. There is fossil evidence not only of early humans over 10,000 years ago, but also other species with very similar bone structures to ours. Other groups of primates have been recorded, without any human aid, using tools to get food. Neanderthals, a different species to humans, lived up to 30,000 years ago, and were capable of making tools. If I did some research, I could list more.

So yes, the religious may get pedantic about the word &#39;Theory&#39;, but it is a theory that has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt by subsequent scientific research. The Big Bang remains a theory, although again there are other recent discoveries (such as red shift) that point to it (or parts of it) being correct).

[Sir Speedy]

Also, both God and The Big Bang Theory can co-exist.

Did anybody say they couldn&#39;t? If so then shut up. If not then I&#39;ll be leaving.

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 30 2009, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418548')</div>
OK, so we have a &#39;Theory of Evolution&#39;. On its own, one man looking at some finches and saying &#39;we come from apes&#39; means little.

However, how many bits of actual science back this up? We&#39;ve got mitachondrial DNA evidence linking us all back to a woman in Africa over 10,000 years ago. Evidence tells us that ourselves and the chimpanzee are 94% related. There is fossil evidence not only of early humans over 10,000 years ago, but also other species with very similar bone structures to ours. Other groups of primates have been recorded, without any human aid, using tools to get food. Neanderthals, a different species to humans, lived up to 30,000 years ago, and were capable of making tools. If I did some research, I could list more.

So yes, the religious may get pedantic about the word &#39;Theory&#39;, but it is a theory that has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt by subsequent scientific research. The Big Bang remains a theory, although again there are other recent discoveries (such as red shift) that point to it (or parts of it) being correct).[/b]
No, you&#39;ve got to do better than that.

Getting pedantic about the word "theory" is no more than seeking to agree the terms of debate. Without those terms it&#39;s just mutual abuse. The criterion of beyond a reasonable doubt is specific to judicial determination of facts, and has nothing to do with science.

Evidence of evolution provides a sliver of understanding for the observer. To expand that into a universal theory is an interesting exercise, but not conclusive, not practical.

Religious authorities - actually, the Vatican - understand that point because they have a tested philosophical discipline, which forces them to try and reconcile the conflict. You argue as if they are enemies of reason. Naive.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ Oct 29 2009, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418522')</div>
We are all religious people if we like it or not. Religion is a word thrown around a lot but the real meaning of religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The meaning of the word Religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion).
We all have our own views and sometimes many people come together with similar views. This is what is known as "organised religion". These are Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism etc.

There are questions that keep coming back to me. "Why are we trying to ditch God? Why are we trying to disprove something that ultimately has a positive influence on so many people&#39;s lives?" and finally "Why are we so arrogant that we can&#39;t accept something bigger than ourselves?"

Maybe if we answer these questions we might actually get somewhere[/b]

This is probably one of the best posts thus far.

How much of what is actually out there (as far as knowledge goes), does the individual know... can anyone give me a percentage? is it 10% (very generous). Then maybe there&#39;s a chance that God actually exists in the other 90%, and you just haven&#39;t learned that yet? We have to admit that there is the possibility.

oh just one thing: if you truly believe Hitler was a Christian, you have just proven that you have absolutely no clue about what Christianity says. If i can step out onto some dangerous ground quickly:
In a tradition Roman Catholic church, will also not find Christianity! They pray to Mary and the Saints and spend a lot of time attributing great power or holiness to pieces of wood, stone or gold! This flies straight in the face of Christianity! They even say that the Pope decides what is true and what not! Now granted in modern times we find Catholics who have turned from those anti biblical ways and now practice Christianity. But in the Dark ages it was not just "scientists" it was by a much greater degree the Christians who were burned at the stake, those who did not follow the Catholic viewpoints and wanted to read the bible for themselves! Since then there has been thousands of people claiming to be Christian but the bible says by their love for each other you will know them and that a tree is recognized by it&#39;s fruit (good or Bad).

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 30 2009, 12:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418549')</div>
Also, both God and The Big Bang Theory can co-exist.

Did anybody say they couldn&#39;t? If so then shut up. If not then I&#39;ll be leaving.[/b]

yes god said so! by saying he created the earth in seven literal days. "it was day it was night... the first day"

what do you mean then you&#39;ll be leaving?

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 30 2009, 12:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418548')</div>
OK, so we have a &#39;Theory of Evolution&#39;. On its own, one man looking at some finches and saying &#39;we come from apes&#39; means little.

However, how many bits of actual science back this up? We&#39;ve got mitachondrial DNA evidence linking us all back to a woman in Africa over 10,000 years ago. Evidence tells us that ourselves and the chimpanzee are 94% related. There is fossil evidence not only of early humans over 10,000 years ago, but also other species with very similar bone structures to ours. Other groups of primates have been recorded, without any human aid, using tools to get food. Neanderthals, a different species to humans, lived up to 30,000 years ago, and were capable of making tools. If I did some research, I could list more.

So yes, the religious may get pedantic about the word &#39;Theory&#39;, but it is a theory that has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt by subsequent scientific research. The Big Bang remains a theory, although again there are other recent discoveries (such as red shift) that point to it (or parts of it) being correct).[/b]

DNA evidence and similar appearance prove nothing... it&#39;s there to show that for certain beings certain things work well. the evolutionary theory doesn&#39;t say that we might find certain links... if it did these things you listed would be proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. but if evolution says that one species came from another, then it must (in order to be fact) take a birds egg subject it to some tests and hatch a bloomin&#39; flying squirrel! That would be indisputable fact! by the way even some insects use tools. and time factors are all based on inconsistent dating methods. These are all things that have been discredited as many times as they have been proven!

okay maybe it&#39;s difficult to give a last word on the topic, but this just once again shows the futility of this topic "We got proof! that&#39;s not proof! Yes it is! no it Isn&#39;t!" and so on

[darwin_23]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 01:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418559')</div>
How much of what is actually out there (as far as knowledge goes), does the individual know... can anyone give me a percentage? is it 10% (very generous). Then maybe there&#39;s a chance that God actually exists in the other 90%, and you just haven&#39;t learned that yet? We have to admit that there is the possibility.[/b]


So your saying "we don&#39;t know everything so God might exist". That&#39;s like me saying "we don&#39;t know everything so we might have been created by a giant pink space bunny, who currently uses platypuses on earth to control us using their secret mind-control powers". Currently there is the same amount of evidence for both scenarios - but since most people weren&#39;t told the second scenario by there parents they don&#39;t believe it (which is unfortunate). I will honestly admits there is a possibly of God, though I also believe there is an equal possibility that we were created by a giant pink space bunny (or an invisible pink unicorn, or flying spaghetti monster.....)

[darwin_23]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418564')</div>
DNA evidence and similar appearance prove nothing... it&#39;s there to show that for certain beings certain things work well. the evolutionary theory doesn&#39;t say that we might find certain links... if it did these things you listed would be proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. but if evolution says that one species came from another, then it must (in order to be fact) take a birds egg subject it to some tests and hatch a bloomin&#39; flying squirrel! That would be indisputable fact! by the way even some insects use tools. and time factors are all based on inconsistent dating methods. These are all things that have been discredited as many times as they have been proven!

okay maybe it&#39;s difficult to give a last word on the topic, but this just once again shows the futility of this topic "We got proof! that&#39;s not proof! Yes it is! no it Isn&#39;t!" and so on[/b]

This is the exact reason why I find religious beliefs frustrating - some people completely ignore overwhelming evidence as they already have there beliefs made up based on religious texts. Make no mistake biological evolution is proven (and the things listed by gingergenius are proven beyond any reasonable doubt!), the only people who question it either don&#39;t understand it, or do so because of a religious agenda they have. Why you think getting a flying squirrel (a mammal) out of a birds egg will prove evolution is beyond me ?!?!?! (it would in fact quite conclusively disprove evolution!). I could spend time explaining evolution, but it would take too long, isn&#39;t really relevant in a thread about religion, and I&#39;m sure it would be ignored by all with opposing views anyways ;)

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 02:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418569')</div>
Make no mistake biological evolution is proven (and the things listed by gingergenius are proven beyond any reasonable doubt!), the only people who question it either don&#39;t understand it, or do so because of a religious agenda they have.[/b]

Yes, my point on the beautiful argumentative circle is proven again!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 02:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418569')</div>
Why you think getting a flying squirrel (a mammal) out of a birds egg will prove evolution is beyond me ?!?!?! (it would in fact quite conclusively disprove evolution!).[/b]

a flying squirrel might be a bit outrageous (sense of humor aside that is!). Although Steven Gould (a little more respected on the topic than anyone here, i&#39;m sure) has hypothesized that evolution might happen in giant leaps and not slow changes. so it wouldn&#39;t disprove evolution, it would prove an offshoot of evolution (okay so maybe it shouldn&#39;t be bird to mammal, what about reptile to bird, would that be better?)! or maybe something completely new like a six legged furry reptilian!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 02:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418569')</div>
I could spend time explaining evolution, but it would take too long, isn&#39;t really relevant in a thread about religion, and I&#39;m sure it would be ignored by all with opposing views anyways ;)[/b]

Ditto for the Creationist argument! B)

Remember one of you affirmed it as an counter argument to my one quote: just because one opinion is more widely spread than another, doesn&#39;t make it the right one. Especially if that opinion is less than a hundred years old. There are many scientific "facts" that stood for much longer than 100 years only to be completely blown out of the water! Evolution might make a stronger argument because it relies on very partial and subjective evidence and claims the time factor which means we have to wait and see if nature will prove it... but alas we just never will reach the age of a million odd years now would we?

Point: Just don&#39;t be arrogant about Evolutions apparent watertight theory! I&#39;m not trying to claim the absolute validity on the case for any scientific research on the biblical accounts, I just personally believe them to be more plausible. The best biblical proof however is in the manuscripts and in personal testimony, which has nothing to do with the beginning of the world! Which reminds me isn&#39;t this thread about religion and not about evolution can i suggest we talk about Religion:

Which is right?
Who was Jesus?
Was Mohammed who he claimed to be!
etc etc.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418537')</div>
Religious authorities - actually, the Vatican - understand that point because they have a tested philosophical discipline, which forces them to try and reconcile the conflict. You argue as if they are enemies of reason. Naive.[/b]
They argue that Homosexuals are going to hell (a place that doesnt exist) because of what was written in a book 1500 year ago. The believe that the risk of pregnancy is the perfect deterrent to sex outside of marraige, and have refused to change this mindset aiding the spread of AIDS globally, again this is because of a book written 1500 years ago. This is just the Catholics, they are the easy going ones.

The American Christian variety tend to believe that the world is 10,000 years old (no older), the great flood and ones and twosies bits happened, and we were made in gods image, about 6000 years ago (i think) from a handful of dirt (except women of course).

Followers of Islam believe they have the right to kill anyone who offends their religion (writes a book, draws a cartoon, occupies holy land), they believe in the inferiority of the female side of the species, they believe in death to any non-believers, again based on the content of a book.

There is nothin Naive about it. Of course they are enemies of reason. Your denial of this is absurd.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 10:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418533')</div>
I&#39;ll be satisfied when mathematicians get to the bottom of it all, because they deal in ultimate truth. I&#39;m not holding my breath.[/b]
So if it hasnt been proven mathematically you dont believe it? Do you also accept the supernatural arguement instead? If not your effectively saying you dont believe in anything unless mathematics has proven it. How do you function as a human being in the absebse of all this mathematical proof?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418537')</div>
Some of our resident evolutionists argue as if their theory were a theorem. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.[/b]
We have Christians here who believe the Christian "Science" also offer a valid thoery (the kinds that either require supernatural interference, or just cant be proven). By your logic we should accept that, and other thoeries like the BFSM, The celestial teapot as equally valid because they too havent been proven 100%. Or are all of them invalid which just seems illogical. Is it possible to have "no position" on everything?

The thing is their religion depends on the 100% infallibility of the bible. Natural Selection (as close to a theorem as we will probably ever get) shows that man was not made in the image of god, and not 6,000 years ago. In the same way we can point to techtonic plate movement, fossils, dinosaurs, 13billion year old stars etc to reinforce the ridiculous position they hold.

Thats all Science has to do in this arguement. The bible sets the rules, we just have to show its a pile of ****e. Its kinda easy really.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418537')</div>
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.[/b]
But a hell of a lot more likely than God made man out of a pile of dirt sometimes after creating light and before some other event. You are trying to make Abiogenesis sound as ridiculous as religion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 11:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418550')</div>
Getting pedantic about the word "theory" is no more than seeking to agree the terms of debate. Without those terms it&#39;s just mutual abuse. The criterion of beyond a reasonable doubt is specific to judicial determination of facts, and has nothing to do with science.[/b]
I dont think it was ever proven that the Earth is actually bigger than the moon. I mean not 100%. Do you require 100% proof of every fact the earth throws at you before accepting it, or does Beyond a reasonable doubt actually come into it? Beyond a reasonable doubt actually has a lot to do with Science. It has sod all to do with Mathematics, but Science can only go so far sometimes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 04:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418581')</div>
Ditto for the Creationist argument! B)[/b]
Not true. Quite a few of us read your account of boat building. It was amusing, but it offered no proof and the chances are it was logistically impossible. Its not a thoery, its a myth.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 04:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418581')</div>
The best biblical proof however is in the manuscripts and in personal testimony[/b]
There you go then. Personal testimony compiled 30 years after the fact (explains the contradictions). A book complied 300 years after the fact. Throw in a bit of Supernatural hocus pocus and voila ............ the perfect manual for life.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ Oct 29 2009, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418522')</div>
There are questions that keep coming back to me. "Why are we trying to ditch God? Why are we trying to disprove something that ultimately has a positive influence on so many people&#39;s lives?" and finally "Why are we so arrogant that we can&#39;t accept something bigger than ourselves?"

Maybe if we answer these questions we might actually get somewhere[/b]

No no no and no. Ultimately religion can have a positive, negative or negligible influence on someone&#39;s life. It is neither the force for good you make it out to be, nor the force for evil that has a finger in the pie of the crusades, imperialism, several genocides and countless other ills. Why are we so arrogant? Because we as a species are the most successful out of the millions of other species that have existed on earth. It is this arrogance that created religion in the first place, simply because humans couldn&#39;t accept that there were natural forces their brainpower as yet couldn&#39;t explain. Why should we accept something that there&#39;s no evidence for?

And shtove, I don&#39;t need to reply to you because I really don&#39;t have to do better than that. In the religion vs science debate the balance of facts is weighed very heavily on one side. It is the other side who &#39;needs to do better&#39; to make up the balance. You cannot waive irrefutable evidence away by saying there&#39;s not enough of it.

[O'Rothlain]

Some of you lads need to take basic science classes again and learn your termonology.
Theory & LAW.

Theory: (countable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#C)) (sciences) A coherent (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coherent) statement (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/statement) or set of statements that attempts (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attempt) to explain (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/explain) observed (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/observe) phenomena (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/phenomenon).
There is now a well-developed theory of electrical charge.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory

Law: A well-established, observed physical characteristic or behavior of nature. Newton and Einstein understood the law of gravitation in very different ways
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/law

Therefore Gravity, unlike some have noted, is no longer a theory, it is a Law. Evolution, unlike some of you have noted, has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and is therefore a Theory.

The two terms are immense when discussing things of this nature. Evolution has not been proven to be a law. It is not a known absolute. It is a good way to explain findings in nature, but at this point is just an assumption (however logically or scientifically formed).
Creationism is the belief that for this natural world/universe to exist, something supernatural must have happened, because in nature chaos does not become orderly, order breaks down to chaos. Please check the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You treat us as if we don&#39;t go about things logically because we assume the divine or the supernatural, which just isn&#39;t right.

[durbutter]

Learn how spell terminology. :P

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noidsay @ Oct 30 2009, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418640')</div>
Learn how spell terminology. :P[/b]

You got me on that one, you........ <_<
Ha Ha...where&#39;s spell check when you need it!!!

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 30 2009, 11:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418604')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418537')
Religious authorities - actually, the Vatican - understand that point because they have a tested philosophical discipline, which forces them to try and reconcile the conflict. You argue as if they are enemies of reason. Naive.[/b]
They argue that Homosexuals are going to hell (a place that doesnt exist) because of what was written in a book 1500 year ago. The believe that the risk of pregnancy is the perfect deterrent to sex outside of marraige, and have refused to change this mindset aiding the spread of AIDS globally, again this is because of a book written 1500 years ago. This is just the Catholics, they are the easy going ones.

The American Christian variety tend to believe that the world is 10,000 years old (no older), the great flood and ones and twosies bits happened, and we were made in gods image, about 6000 years ago (i think) from a handful of dirt (except women of course).

Followers of Islam believe they have the right to kill anyone who offends their religion (writes a book, draws a cartoon, occupies holy land), they believe in the inferiority of the female side of the species, they believe in death to any non-believers, again based on the content of a book.

There is nothin Naive about it. Of course they are enemies of reason. Your denial of this is absurd.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 10:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418533')</div>
I&#39;ll be satisfied when mathematicians get to the bottom of it all, because they deal in ultimate truth. I&#39;m not holding my breath.[/b]
So if it hasnt been proven mathematically you dont believe it? Do you also accept the supernatural arguement instead? If not your effectively saying you dont believe in anything unless mathematics has proven it. How do you function as a human being in the absebse of all this mathematical proof?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418537')</div>
Some of our resident evolutionists argue as if their theory were a theorem. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.[/b]
We have Christians here who believe the Christian "Science" also offer a valid thoery (the kinds that either require supernatural interference, or just cant be proven). By your logic we should accept that, and other thoeries like the BFSM, The celestial teapot as equally valid because they too havent been proven 100%. Or are all of them invalid which just seems illogical. Is it possible to have "no position" on everything?

The thing is their religion depends on the 100% infallibility of the bible. Natural Selection (as close to a theorem as we will probably ever get) shows that man was not made in the image of god, and not 6,000 years ago. In the same way we can point to techtonic plate movement, fossils, dinosaurs, 13billion year old stars etc to reinforce the ridiculous position they hold.

Thats all Science has to do in this arguement. The bible sets the rules, we just have to show its a pile of ****e. Its kinda easy really.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418537')</div>
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.[/b]
But a hell of a lot more likely than God made man out of a pile of dirt sometimes after creating light and before some other event. You are trying to make Abiogenesis sound as ridiculous as religion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 11:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418550')</div>
Getting pedantic about the word "theory" is no more than seeking to agree the terms of debate. Without those terms it&#39;s just mutual abuse. The criterion of beyond a reasonable doubt is specific to judicial determination of facts, and has nothing to do with science.[/b]
I dont think it was ever proven that the Earth is actually bigger than the moon. I mean not 100%. Do you require 100% proof of every fact the earth throws at you before accepting it, or does Beyond a reasonable doubt actually come into it? Beyond a reasonable doubt actually has a lot to do with Science. It has sod all to do with Mathematics, but Science can only go so far sometimes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 04:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418581')</div>
Ditto for the Creationist argument! B)[/b]
Not true. Quite a few of us read your account of boat building. It was amusing, but it offered no proof and the chances are it was logistically impossible. Its not a thoery, its a myth.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 04:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418581')</div>
The best biblical proof however is in the manuscripts and in personal testimony[/b]
There you go then. Personal testimony compiled 30 years after the fact (explains the contradictions). A book complied 300 years after the fact. Throw in a bit of Supernatural hocus pocus and voila ............ the perfect manual for life.
[/b][/quote]
Sweet jebus, you read an awful lot of crap ... and believe it!

That post is full of false understandings and assumptions. You should write a letter to the Irish Times. Or just write the Irish Times. Thankfully, it&#39;s going out of business.

What is a homosexual? Is that like a homo sapiens? Or is it a sodomite? Or a leeeesbian? Or a gay? Or someone who&#39;s shy about sex? Or blatant about sex? Or someone with an eye for fashion? Or a kiddy fiddler? I&#39;d really like to know the basis for that categorisation.

And let&#39;s start a thread on the link or non-link between HIV and AIDS, so we can all get really really irritated.

p.s. I&#39;d suggest a thread on the bull**** of global warming rip-off taxation politics, but that would blow all the liberal gaskets.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418668')</div>
That post is full of false understandings and assumptions.[/b]
I was just responding to the pedantic crap you came out with and followed your logic to its conclusion. Care to point out which assumptions and understandings are incorrect (and why) and which ones are correct?

I didnt really understand the rest of the post.

[O'Rothlain]

Can I just add that the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the spread of aids. I think this notion is simply retarded. I have friends who go on and on about it, but it just isn&#39;t right. If you don&#39;t want aids, don&#39;t have sex. It&#39;s called self-control, and it&#39;s your responsibility. And, and, if you disagree with the church, go strap on 15 rubbers and plug away at any ole minger that&#39;ll have you. It&#39;s not as if the Pope is sitting in a helicopter pouring aids-dust over Africa. Africa is doing it to themselves. I&#39;ve had friends who were missionaries in Zambia for over 7 years, and the stories are shocking. Men raping under-aged girls because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure aids. That doesn&#39;t come from the Church. Anyway, I think this is one point where I can say you are picking a fight for fights sake. This argument is an agenda started by anti-church people.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418678')</div>
Can I just add that the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the spread of aids. I think this notion is simply retarded. I have friends who go on and on about it, but it just isn&#39;t right. If you don&#39;t want aids, don&#39;t have sex. It&#39;s called self-control, and it&#39;s your responsibility. And, and, if you disagree with the church, go strap on 15 rubbers and plug away at any ole minger that&#39;ll have you. It&#39;s not as if the Pope is sitting in a helicopter pouring aids-dust over Africa. Africa is doing it to themselves. I&#39;ve had friends who were missionaries in Zambia for over 7 years, and the stories are shocking. Men raping under-aged girls because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure aids. That doesn&#39;t come from the Church. Anyway, I think this is one point where I can say you are picking a fight for fights sake. This argument is an agenda started by anti-church people.[/b]

No. If a Church with a huge influence over people (largest religion in the world...) says &#39;use of contraceptives is murder&#39; then a lot of people are going to listen. Condoms and education are the best ways of preventing AIDs. The &#39;no sex&#39; argument is like saying &#39;never eat and you won&#39;t get food poisoning&#39;. You&#39;re never going to get people to stop having sex. In the West, HIV/ AIDs has a low prevalance because of contraceptives and education. No one is blaming anyone for the spread of AIDs, but preaching against the use of contraceptives is at best harmful to prevention of the disease.

Anyway, that is a sidetrack to the whole religion debate...

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 31 2009, 05:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418697')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418678')
Can I just add that the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the spread of aids. I think this notion is simply retarded. I have friends who go on and on about it, but it just isn&#39;t right. If you don&#39;t want aids, don&#39;t have sex. It&#39;s called self-control, and it&#39;s your responsibility. And, and, if you disagree with the church, go strap on 15 rubbers and plug away at any ole minger that&#39;ll have you. It&#39;s not as if the Pope is sitting in a helicopter pouring aids-dust over Africa. Africa is doing it to themselves. I&#39;ve had friends who were missionaries in Zambia for over 7 years, and the stories are shocking. Men raping under-aged girls because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure aids. That doesn&#39;t come from the Church. Anyway, I think this is one point where I can say you are picking a fight for fights sake. This argument is an agenda started by anti-church people.[/b]

No. If a Church with a huge influence over people (largest religion in the world...) says &#39;use of contraceptives is murder&#39; then a lot of people are going to listen. Condoms and education are the best ways of preventing AIDs. The &#39;no sex&#39; argument is like saying &#39;never eat and you won&#39;t get food poisoning&#39;. You&#39;re never going to get people to stop having sex. In the West, HIV/ AIDs has a low prevalance because of contraceptives and education. No one is blaming anyone for the spread of AIDs, but preaching against the use of contraceptives is at best harmful to prevention of the disease.

Anyway, that is a sidetrack to the whole religion debate...
[/b][/quote]
It&#39;s a 2 sided rule. The church says no condoms and no sex before marriage. So, the fact that people will ignore the "no sex before marriage" part, but hold fast to the "no condom" part is ridiculous. The Churches whole position on sex is what should be examined, not just the wee bit that you want to pick out.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418702')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 31 2009, 05:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418697')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418678')
Can I just add that the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the spread of aids. I think this notion is simply retarded. I have friends who go on and on about it, but it just isn&#39;t right. If you don&#39;t want aids, don&#39;t have sex. It&#39;s called self-control, and it&#39;s your responsibility. And, and, if you disagree with the church, go strap on 15 rubbers and plug away at any ole minger that&#39;ll have you. It&#39;s not as if the Pope is sitting in a helicopter pouring aids-dust over Africa. Africa is doing it to themselves. I&#39;ve had friends who were missionaries in Zambia for over 7 years, and the stories are shocking. Men raping under-aged girls because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure aids. That doesn&#39;t come from the Church. Anyway, I think this is one point where I can say you are picking a fight for fights sake. This argument is an agenda started by anti-church people.[/b]

No. If a Church with a huge influence over people (largest religion in the world...) says &#39;use of contraceptives is murder&#39; then a lot of people are going to listen. Condoms and education are the best ways of preventing AIDs. The &#39;no sex&#39; argument is like saying &#39;never eat and you won&#39;t get food poisoning&#39;. You&#39;re never going to get people to stop having sex. In the West, HIV/ AIDs has a low prevalance because of contraceptives and education. No one is blaming anyone for the spread of AIDs, but preaching against the use of contraceptives is at best harmful to prevention of the disease.

Anyway, that is a sidetrack to the whole religion debate...
[/b][/quote]
It&#39;s a 2 sided rule. The church says no condoms and no sex before marriage. So, the fact that people will ignore the "no sex before marriage" part, but hold fast to the "no condom" part is ridiculous. The Churches whole position on sex is what should be examined, not just the wee bit that you want to pick out.
[/b][/quote]

Fair point.

Although it is unrealistic to presume that no sex will take place before marriage.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 31 2009, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418708')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418702')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 31 2009, 05:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418697')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418678')
Can I just add that the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the spread of aids. I think this notion is simply retarded. I have friends who go on and on about it, but it just isn&#39;t right. If you don&#39;t want aids, don&#39;t have sex. It&#39;s called self-control, and it&#39;s your responsibility. And, and, if you disagree with the church, go strap on 15 rubbers and plug away at any ole minger that&#39;ll have you. It&#39;s not as if the Pope is sitting in a helicopter pouring aids-dust over Africa. Africa is doing it to themselves. I&#39;ve had friends who were missionaries in Zambia for over 7 years, and the stories are shocking. Men raping under-aged girls because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure aids. That doesn&#39;t come from the Church. Anyway, I think this is one point where I can say you are picking a fight for fights sake. This argument is an agenda started by anti-church people.[/b]

No. If a Church with a huge influence over people (largest religion in the world...) says &#39;use of contraceptives is murder&#39; then a lot of people are going to listen. Condoms and education are the best ways of preventing AIDs. The &#39;no sex&#39; argument is like saying &#39;never eat and you won&#39;t get food poisoning&#39;. You&#39;re never going to get people to stop having sex. In the West, HIV/ AIDs has a low prevalance because of contraceptives and education. No one is blaming anyone for the spread of AIDs, but preaching against the use of contraceptives is at best harmful to prevention of the disease.

Anyway, that is a sidetrack to the whole religion debate...
[/b][/quote]
It&#39;s a 2 sided rule. The church says no condoms and no sex before marriage. So, the fact that people will ignore the "no sex before marriage" part, but hold fast to the "no condom" part is ridiculous. The Churches whole position on sex is what should be examined, not just the wee bit that you want to pick out.
[/b][/quote]

Fair point.

Although it is unrealistic to presume that no sex will take place before marriage.
[/b][/quote]
The Realistic side is that the Church only sees sex as an act of marriage, therefore when married and having sex they prohibit the use of birth control. They condem the act of sex outside of marriage before they condone the use of birth control.
While I understand that it might be "unrealistic" to presume that no sex will happen before, it doesn&#39;t change the moral standard set forth.
Anyway, enough of that...sort of a side tangent.

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 31 2009, 12:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418671')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418668')
That post is full of false understandings and assumptions.[/b]
I was just responding to the pedantic crap you came out with and followed your logic to its conclusion. Care to point out which assumptions and understandings are incorrect (and why) and which ones are correct?

I didnt really understand the rest of the post.
[/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t really understand it either. It was a rant.

I did come across a bit strong, but then you are full of crap and nothing you said was correct.

You use cartoon notions to dismiss a very profound appreciation of life and seem to have a literal mind, well suited for a shouting match with people who insist on the literal truth of the bible. The Americans you refer to are simply protestants who take a leaf out of Ussher&#39;s book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher) - born in Dublin.

Catholics don&#39;t argue that homosexuals are going to hell. Their point is that sex is for procreation within the family, and that people who have a different reason for waving their cocks around are best advised to keep it in their pants. If they don&#39;t follow that advice, then they are in a state of sin and estranged from god, whether or not they&#39;re homosexual.

My rant comes from frustration that the notion of homosexuality wipes out the true purpose of sex. The state uses this carte blanche to justify interference in the family and the promotion of the benefits system as the "bread winner" for millions of children born to poor mothers. It defies personal responsibility and erodes our freedoms. And besides, I&#39;m ****** off paying taxes for this nonsense.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418735')</div>
Catholics don&#39;t argue that homosexuals are going to hell. Their point is that sex is for procreation within the family, and that people who have a different reason for waving their cocks around are best advised to keep it in their pants. If they don&#39;t follow that advice, then they are in a state of sin and estranged from god, whether or not they&#39;re homosexual.[/b]
That is the best way to put it.

[melon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Nov 1 2009, 08:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418738')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418735')
Catholics don&#39;t argue that homosexuals are going to hell. Their point is that sex is for procreation within the family, and that people who have a different reason for waving their cocks around are best advised to keep it in their pants. If they don&#39;t follow that advice, then they are in a state of sin and estranged from god, whether or not they&#39;re homosexual.[/b]
That is the best way to put it.
[/b][/quote]
That statement becomes null and void on the basis that there&#39;s no such thing as the being who is being lusted upon by far too many people.

Haw haw haw.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418735')</div>
My rant comes from frustration that the notion of homosexuality wipes out the true purpose of sex. The state uses this carte blanche to justify interference in the family and the promotion of the benefits system as the "bread winner" for millions of children born to poor mothers. It defies personal responsibility and erodes our freedoms. And besides, I&#39;m ****** off paying taxes for this nonsense.[/b]

Sex is fun. Yeah it&#39;s more loving and ultimately more intense and meaningful in a relationship, but having a one night stand can (and usually is) great fun. It&#39;s the deepest expression of desire for someone, hence the expression &#39;how far did you go&#39;, with the furthest being intercourse. If you fancy people of your own sex, that doesn&#39;t make it any different. Homosexuality is not a &#39;notion&#39;.

And being ****** off paying taxes really gets on my tits. The collective money of the people pays for so many of the things we enjoy and take for granted. We enjoy healthcare, transport, security, education and numerous other benefits thanks to the collective resources of the nation. Whenever I get a payslip I&#39;m happy that my taxes are being put toward the Greater Good. It&#39;s national insurance that ****** me off.

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 1 2009, 04:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418763')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418735')
My rant comes from frustration that the notion of homosexuality wipes out the true purpose of sex. The state uses this carte blanche to justify interference in the family and the promotion of the benefits system as the "bread winner" for millions of children born to poor mothers. It defies personal responsibility and erodes our freedoms. And besides, I&#39;m ****** off paying taxes for this nonsense.[/b]

Sex is fun. Yeah it&#39;s more loving and ultimately more intense and meaningful in a relationship, but having a one night stand can (and usually is) great fun. It&#39;s the deepest expression of desire for someone, hence the expression &#39;how far did you go&#39;, with the furthest being intercourse. If you fancy people of your own sex, that doesn&#39;t make it any different. Homosexuality is not a &#39;notion&#39;.

And being ****** off paying taxes really gets on my tits. The collective money of the people pays for so many of the things we enjoy and take for granted. We enjoy healthcare, transport, security, education and numerous other benefits thanks to the collective resources of the nation. Whenever I get a payslip I&#39;m happy that my taxes are being put toward the Greater Good. It&#39;s national insurance that ****** me off.

[/b][/quote]
Sex is weird - especially when you give the gspot a healthy rub. But then you pay for the pleasure. Can&#39;t afford the consequences? Not so much fun.

I guess if you&#39;re employed by the NHS then taxation makes a whole lot of sense. Personally, I prefer not to pay tax and not employ you nor pay for your ridiculous pension scheme. The NHS - looking after #1 ... and the Labour Party.

Apart from that, I&#39;m being chased by taxation zombies whenever I pay for booze, tobacco, and fuel - 70% every time. The reason they don&#39;t let you have a gun in this c***ry is to stop you delivering a head shot to the flesh tearing monster of the state.

The Greater Good is a whole other religion, usually called communism. George Orwell sums it up nicely.

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 1 2009, 07:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418765')</div>
Sex is weird - especially when you give the gspot a healthy rub. But then you pay for the pleasure. Can&#39;t afford the consequences? Not so much fun.

I guess if you&#39;re employed by the NHS then taxation makes a whole lot of sense. Personally, I prefer not to pay tax and not employ you nor pay for your ridiculous pension scheme. The NHS - looking after #1 ... and the Labour Party.

Apart from that, I&#39;m being chased by taxation zombies whenever I pay for booze, tobacco, and fuel - 70% every time. The reason they don&#39;t let you have a gun in this c***ry is to stop you delivering a head shot to the flesh tearing monster of the state.

The Greater Good is a whole other religion, usually called communism. George Orwell sums it up nicely.[/b]

What differentiates us from animals is that we have found a way to separate sex from procreation. I don&#39;t think you eat raw food and go around naked. You&#39;re also probably using electricity and such modern commodities. Yet for some reason SEX has to be different. The religions of the Book have such a problem with sex, women, and bodily pleasures it&#39;s not even funny.
Oh and btw, I don&#39;t think you would ask for a car advice to somebody who hasn&#39;t even got his license, right ?


http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/15/5rkjk.png (http://img511.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5rkjk.png)

Is this you ?

The greater good is called living in a society, and giving a part of your money to the state so he can manage things than you can&#39;t. Now if you don&#39;t give a **** about other people (are you a christian ?) you can always sod off to some deserted island...

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418735')</div>
but then you are full of crap and nothing you said was correct.[/b]
Thats twice now youve said, and twice youve expanded on it, but twice you still havent pointed out where I was incorrect.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 31 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418735')</div>
Catholics don&#39;t argue that homosexuals are going to hell.[/b]
Would you stop. the two of you. Homosexuals are an abomination, they shall not inherit the kingdom of god etc. Its in the "good" book and I havent heard the vatican (them being the heads of the catholic church yeah?) refute any of that. I presume its still one of them big sins that can be forgiven if they give up their life of sin and be good again (which is great news for all the priests that seemed to enjoy practicing it on little boys around Ireland) but if they dont its an eternity burning in hell aint it?

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 1 2009, 05:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418765')</div>
Sex is weird - especially when you give the gspot a healthy rub. But then you pay for the pleasure. Can&#39;t afford the consequences? Not so much fun.

I guess if you&#39;re employed by the NHS then taxation makes a whole lot of sense. Personally, I prefer not to pay tax and not employ you nor pay for your ridiculous pension scheme. The NHS - looking after #1 ... and the Labour Party.

Apart from that, I&#39;m being chased by taxation zombies whenever I pay for booze, tobacco, and fuel - 70% every time. The reason they don&#39;t let you have a gun in this c***ry is to stop you delivering a head shot to the flesh tearing monster of the state.

The Greater Good is a whole other religion, usually called communism. George Orwell sums it up nicely.[/b]

mate what are you on? What has paying for sex got to do with anything? And fine, we&#39;ll remove the NHS for shtove&#39;s benefit. We&#39;ll knock out the largest employer in Britain, just so we can divert the taxes into benefit money for the 1.3 million people in England who are newly unemployed. I presume you&#39;re then willing to divert more money into paying for extra police to cover the bump in crime that goes with a rise in unemployment?

Or shall we just get rid of any form of taxation? In which case, refer to Charles&#39; source. Then, f*** off to Switzerland, Monaco and Dubai with all the other selfish c***s *Lewis Hamilton cough* who need to keep their greedy paws on every penny they get.

[jacovw]

I see a lot of qoutes about sex being great, by what many women would consider mere boys... and i don&#39;t see many of those women on here going "right on, baby you rocked my world..." which is more likely why one night stands may seem fun to some "boys", never have to deal with her telling you it wasn&#39;t actually all that great!

As for sex and the bible, the same people the bow to statues and pray to saints have a very bad opinion on that. Who do you think made sex great, it was God! and he did not mean it for procreation only or he would not tell us to find pleasure in our new wives breasts. Please don&#39;t talk about the bible as if you know something about it, yet in your statement make it very clear how little you know! There is one whole book in the bible devoted to the erotic (one man and one woman!)

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 1 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418800')</div>
I see a lot of qoutes about sex being great, by what many women would consider mere boys... and i don&#39;t see many of those women on here going "right on, baby you rocked my world..." which is more likely why one night stands may seem fun to some "boys", never have to deal with her telling you it wasn&#39;t actually all that great!

As for sex and the bible, the same people the bow to statues and pray to saints have a very bad opinion on that. Who do you think made sex great, it was God! and he did not mean it for procreation only or he would not tell us to find pleasure in our new wives breasts. Please don&#39;t talk about the bible as if you know something about it, yet in your statement make it very clear how little you know! There is one whole book in the bible devoted to the erotic (one man and one woman!)[/b]

I&#39;ve been considered &#39;boy&#39; by a few much older women... hasn&#39;t got in the way. And I won&#39;t deny I&#39;ve probably been **** with some chicks. But I don&#39;t really see how they&#39;re all going to come on a rugby forum and talk about how great/ **** I was in the sack. Really don&#39;t know what your point is tbh. Every single thing you say reeks of a lack of life experience. Grow up.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 1 2009, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418800')</div>
As for sex and the bible, the same people the bow to statues and pray to saints have a very bad opinion on that.[/b]
Easy on the Catholic-bashing. Regardless or not of your fondness for all things Vatican, it was Christ who prayed that we (Christians) would be one as he and the Father are one.
In my opinion Christianity is too fragmented to even stand up for itself anymore. A house divided cannot stand. We have just as many internal attacks on our faith (protestants bashing catholics, evangelicas bashing baptists, etc...) as we do from people outside our faith. We&#39;ve sort of made it easy for everyone else to just make an attack on the church. The problem is most Christians will just distance themselves. Someone criticizes the scandals with priests of recent and christians will just say "Oh, well those Catholics..." instead of dealing with the fact that the downfall represents us all. On the flipside people of more fundamental or orthodox belief try to distance themselves from the scandals of faith healers and television evangelists. To people outside the faith of Christianity, it&#39;s all Christians making mistakes and as Christ said we are supposed to be united. My point being that what the Pope says actually has relevance to your life as a christian regardless of you actually being a Catholic, because he is speaking on behalf of "The Church." Therefore working together in an ecuminical environment will actually help restore unity and resolve a lot of internal conflict so we can focus on real attacks from outside sources.

[darwin_23]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Oct 31 2009, 05:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418639')</div>
Some of you lads need to take basic science classes again and learn your termonology.
Theory & LAW.

Theory: (countable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#C)) (sciences) A coherent (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coherent) statement (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/statement) or set of statements that attempts (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attempt) to explain (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/explain) observed (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/observe) phenomena (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/phenomenon).
There is now a well-developed theory of electrical charge.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory

Law: A well-established, observed physical characteristic or behavior of nature. Newton and Einstein understood the law of gravitation in very different ways
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/law

Therefore Gravity, unlike some have noted, is no longer a theory, it is a Law. Evolution, unlike some of you have noted, has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and is therefore a Theory.

The two terms are immense when discussing things of this nature. Evolution has not been proven to be a law. It is not a known absolute. It is a good way to explain findings in nature, but at this point is just an assumption (however logically or scientifically formed).
Creationism is the belief that for this natural world/universe to exist, something supernatural must have happened, because in nature chaos does not become orderly, order breaks down to chaos. Please check the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You treat us as if we don&#39;t go about things logically because we assume the divine or the supernatural, which just isn&#39;t right.[/b]


You misunderstand the difference between scientific laws and theories. Proving something does not change it from a theory to a law, as theories and laws are describe different things - a theory can never become a law, and likewise a law can never become a theory. Both scientific theories and laws describes a scientific fact - Scientific laws explain what nature does under certain conditions, while scientific theories explain how nature works.

Perhaps you should take basic science classes again and learn your termonology ;)

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Nov 1 2009, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418829')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 1 2009, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418800')
As for sex and the bible, the same people the bow to statues and pray to saints have a very bad opinion on that.[/b]
Easy on the Catholic-bashing. Regardless or not of your fondness for all things Vatican, it was Christ who prayed that we (Christians) would be one as he and the Father are one.
In my opinion Christianity is too fragmented to even stand up for itself anymore. A house divided cannot stand. We have just as many internal attacks on our faith (protestants bashing catholics, evangelicas bashing baptists, etc...) as we do from people outside our faith. We&#39;ve sort of made it easy for everyone else to just make an attack on the church. The problem is most Christians will just distance themselves. Someone criticizes the scandals with priests of recent and christians will just say "Oh, well those Catholics..." instead of dealing with the fact that the downfall represents us all. On the flipside people of more fundamental or orthodox belief try to distance themselves from the scandals of faith healers and television evangelists. To people outside the faith of Christianity, it&#39;s all Christians making mistakes and as Christ said we are supposed to be united. My point being that what the Pope says actually has relevance to your life as a christian regardless of you actually being a Catholic, because he is speaking on behalf of "The Church." Therefore working together in an ecuminical environment will actually help restore unity and resolve a lot of internal conflict so we can focus on real attacks from outside sources.
[/b][/quote]

Sorry, don&#39;t mean it in a "bashing" way. My beef is just that as for The church of Christ (as a unified body), we through out Seventh day adventists and a few others as Cults and Isms, and yet when it comes to the catholics we say they are just another part of Christ&#39;s body, yet they diverge from true biblical doctrinal foundations on many more levels than many of these cults! The pope kisses the Koran, Mary is revered somewhere between being equal to or greater than Christ, saints are called upon for good luck... their stance on many things are directly opposed to that of Christianity, I believe we are scared to admit this though because that would make us a minority religion, in other words we have learned nothing from all the "David vs Goliath" stories in the old testament! God is not intimidated by numbers and neither should we be. I&#39;ve got no problem with a christian who does not believe in miracles or tongues or any such thing, but if there is one person that has the right to speak on behalf of the church, it is not the Pope, whose station for hundreds of years now have been religiously masked politics.

All Christians make mistakes, true but a man is not just a Christian because he says so! If we continue to include this falsehood in our faith we have no place but the stance of being ridiculed in any argument!

I have nothing against Catholics as people, but I stand firm against their teachings, same with Muslims, same with Buddhists, Same with any religion other than bible based Christianity!

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 1 2009, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418810')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 1 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418800')
I see a lot of qoutes about sex being great, by what many women would consider mere boys... and i don&#39;t see many of those women on here going "right on, baby you rocked my world..." which is more likely why one night stands may seem fun to some "boys", never have to deal with her telling you it wasn&#39;t actually all that great!

As for sex and the bible, the same people the bow to statues and pray to saints have a very bad opinion on that. Who do you think made sex great, it was God! and he did not mean it for procreation only or he would not tell us to find pleasure in our new wives breasts. Please don&#39;t talk about the bible as if you know something about it, yet in your statement make it very clear how little you know! There is one whole book in the bible devoted to the erotic (one man and one woman!)[/b]

I&#39;ve been considered &#39;boy&#39; by a few much older women... hasn&#39;t got in the way. And I won&#39;t deny I&#39;ve probably been **** with some chicks. But I don&#39;t really see how they&#39;re all going to come on a rugby forum and talk about how great/ **** I was in the sack. Really don&#39;t know what your point is tbh. Every single thing you say reeks of a lack of life experience. Grow up.
[/b][/quote]

The argument made was pro sex before marriage and one night stands. My point explained: It&#39;s all fine and well for one party to say it is great but if the other disagrees that makes it a 50/50 split. My point that I continued making was that the bible promotes sex that is great for both parties, but this would probably not mean much to the evolutionary thinker... but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage!

in terms of life experience - Think what you may... I have no need to discuss my private life on a public forum...

Oh and i never said "i think the girls are avoiding the forum because...". My point there is that it&#39;s very easy to exaggerate and brag (not saying you are, not saying you&#39;re not) about all your conquests sitting on the other side of a screen... it&#39;s just on the internet we can find that kind of talk anywhere...

[Steve-o]

Wow. This is really something else.

[Juan VdS]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418920')</div>
I have nothing against Catholics as people, but I stand firm against their teachings, same with Muslims, same with Buddhists, Same with any religion other than bible based Christianity![/b]

Interesting. I really saw that coming. That is the difference between some Christians and Atheists like us: we are open to new theories that *might* bestow us with another spectrum whereby we *might* get closer to the truth.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418922')</div>
but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage![/b]

Marriage? Really? Hmm. To me, modern marriage is just a paper. A legal contract that puts an end to the very essence of love: renewed passion. I honestly can&#39;t believe how religious people, with all their morality and attachment to spiritualistic values, can end up succumbing to such a hypocritical snobism.

[Sir Speedy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418922')</div>
but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage![/b]
Call me cynical but... &#39;a loving marriage&#39;? Haha, see? I implied that such a thing does not exist. So clever and stuff.

Also, the marriage itself has absolutely nothing to do with the emotions two people feel for each other. You say two lovers can only achieve the maximum level of euphoria out of intercourse within the boundaries of marriage - pure nonsense. Being legally bound does not enhance the amount of love one feels for another.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418922')</div>
The argument made was pro sex before marriage and one night stands. My point explained: It&#39;s all fine and well for one party to say it is great but if the other disagrees that makes it a 50/50 split. My point that I continued making was that the bible promotes sex that is great for both parties, but this would probably not mean much to the evolutionary thinker... but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage![/b]

First time is a f***ing clumsy affair so even waiting for it in a &#39;loving marriage&#39; would end up in the same result. Physical level would be pretty low to be honest. BTW, were &#39;god&#39; and Mary in a loving marriage?

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 2 2009, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418964')</div>
BTW, were &#39;god&#39; and Mary in a loving marriage?[/b]
Or Pastor Ted and Mike Jones ;)

Someone let me know if and when this comes back on topic.

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 2 2009, 12:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418786')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 1 2009, 05:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418765')
Sex is weird - especially when you give the gspot a healthy rub. But then you pay for the pleasure. Can&#39;t afford the consequences? Not so much fun.

I guess if you&#39;re employed by the NHS then taxation makes a whole lot of sense. Personally, I prefer not to pay tax and not employ you nor pay for your ridiculous pension scheme. The NHS - looking after #1 ... and the Labour Party.

Apart from that, I&#39;m being chased by taxation zombies whenever I pay for booze, tobacco, and fuel - 70% every time. The reason they don&#39;t let you have a gun in this c***ry is to stop you delivering a head shot to the flesh tearing monster of the state.

The Greater Good is a whole other religion, usually called communism. George Orwell sums it up nicely.[/b]

mate what are you on? What has paying for sex got to do with anything? And fine, we&#39;ll remove the NHS for shtove&#39;s benefit. We&#39;ll knock out the largest employer in Britain, just so we can divert the taxes into benefit money for the 1.3 million people in England who are newly unemployed. I presume you&#39;re then willing to divert more money into paying for extra police to cover the bump in crime that goes with a rise in unemployment?

Or shall we just get rid of any form of taxation? In which case, refer to Charles&#39; source. Then, f*** off to Switzerland, Monaco and Dubai with all the other selfish c***s *Lewis Hamilton cough* who need to keep their greedy paws on every penny they get.
[/b][/quote]
What am I on? Private sector income! And I have to go ferreting about for my own pension, without guarantee.

Nurses regularly earn £50k plus. You know the deal with GPs. And it&#39;s not just the NHS. Figure came out today - BA cabin crew on £29k, and the fcukers want to strike over christmas. Know what the median wage in this country is? £25k. Average wage outside London probably £20k. I&#39;ve seen the breakdown of what a single mother with three kids on full benefits gets - £29.5k.

Fantasy land.

Private sector workers can only keep up by borrowing, and now that&#39;s come crashing down. I come across ordinary Joes every week with £20-80k in credit card debt. And the government can only keep the game going for your 1.3 million by borrowing the country into bankruptcy. Too many people employed by NuLab or on benefits at too high a rate. Plus - right now the pension funding is unaffordable, and it&#39;s going to get worse.

There. I&#39;ve gone completely off topic in my Jeremy Clarkson 4-wheel drive, all over your front lawn.

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 2 2009, 09:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418995')</div>
There. I&#39;ve gone completely off topic in my Jeremy Clarkson 4-wheel drive, all over your front lawn.[/b]

And as Scorpion would say:

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/6742/412364-scorpion_spear_super.png

As for the debate on hand, I&#39;ve got one gripe and one gripe only (and this goes for Christianity, Islam, etc)

Sectarianism: the massive aparteihd elephant sitting in our living rooms. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1400380.stm)

My Dad saw it first hand, of children born to one family under one church going to the same school as everyone else in their "tribe" and then the same secondary school and so on. He was revulsed by it and so am I.

You want to solve the world&#39;s problems? Then start by breaking the walls down, Jer1cho style.
</span>

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Nov 2 2009, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418997')</div>
As for the debate on hand, I&#39;ve got one gripe and one gripe only (and this goes for Christianity, Islam, etc)

Sectarianism: the massive aparteihd elephant sitting in our living rooms. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1400380.stm)

My Dad saw it first hand, of children born to one family under one church going to the same school as everyone else in their "tribe" and then the same secondary school and so on. He was revulsed by it and so am I.

You want to solve the world&#39;s problems? Then start by breaking the walls down, Jer1cho style.
</span>[/b]
I think I addressed that above...but for you, I&#39;ll repost...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Nov 1 2009, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418829')</div>
...it was Christ who prayed that we (Christians) would be one as he and the Father are one.
In my opinion Christianity is too fragmented to even stand up for itself anymore. A house divided cannot stand. We have just as many internal attacks on our faith (protestants bashing catholics, evangelicas bashing baptists, etc...) as we do from people outside our faith. We&#39;ve sort of made it easy for everyone else to just make an attack on the church. The problem is most Christians will just distance themselves. Someone criticizes the scandals with priests of recent and christians will just say "Oh, well those Catholics..." instead of dealing with the fact that the downfall represents us all. On the flipside people of more fundamental or orthodox belief try to distance themselves from the scandals of faith healers and television evangelists. To people outside the faith of Christianity, it&#39;s all Christians making mistakes and as Christ said we are supposed to be united. My point being that what the Pope says actually has relevance to your life as a christian regardless of you actually being a Catholic, because he is speaking on behalf of "The Church." Therefore working together in an ecuminical environment will actually help restore unity and resolve a lot of internal conflict so we can focus on real attacks from outside sources.[/b]

[BLR]

O&#39;Roth, a question. Creationism is, as you said, the belief in a supernatural creator. Is it not possible this creator was the catalyst and all that came after was in line with Evolution, eg. various mutations to animals, particles etc. etc. to survive in their environment?

This is what I believe anyway, I find the theory of the big bang glosses over the original catalyst, of which surely must exist for the event to even occur. Hence where the creator comes in, although our minds probably can&#39;t comprehend what it actually was, all other attempts are simply following in line with the human made religious falsities such has been made in most of todays religions to suit their own makers political and social needs. (Don&#39;t make me go into examples of the beginning of the Roman and Islamic religions)

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Nov 2 2009, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418929')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418922')
but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage![/b]
Call me cynical but... &#39;a loving marriage&#39;? Haha, see? I implied that such a thing does not exist. So clever and stuff.

Also, the marriage itself has absolutely nothing to do with the emotions two people feel for each other. You say two lovers can only achieve the maximum level of euphoria out of intercourse within the boundaries of marriage - pure nonsense. Being legally bound does not enhance the amount of love one feels for another.
[/b][/quote]

No being legally bound does not, which is why you get legally, therefor holy in god&#39;s eyes, and the last one (hopefully) lovingly bound in marriage.

I think this argument is making a very good case as to why there are so many denying the existence a God. You see you can argue as much as you like about science and stuff, but i believe where the real reason God is denied is a Moral issue: "Don&#39;t tell me what to do, i don&#39;t like that, i&#39;ll do whatever i like!" I think the argument about sex before marriage goes a long way in exposing that! Many of the arguments "anti-God" so far has carried those exact undertones...

[St Helens RLFC]

I&#39;m Catholic and totally reject the idea of no sex before marriage.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 3 2009, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419086')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Nov 2 2009, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418929')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 2 2009, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=418922')
but call me old fashioned but i believe both the man and the woman should enjoy sex to the maximum on a physical, emotional and spiritual level - and that can only happen within a loving marriage![/b]
Call me cynical but... &#39;a loving marriage&#39;? Haha, see? I implied that such a thing does not exist. So clever and stuff.

Also, the marriage itself has absolutely nothing to do with the emotions two people feel for each other. You say two lovers can only achieve the maximum level of euphoria out of intercourse within the boundaries of marriage - pure nonsense. Being legally bound does not enhance the amount of love one feels for another.
[/b][/quote]

No being legally bound does not, which is why you get legally, therefor holy in god&#39;s eyes, and the last one (hopefully) lovingly bound in marriage.

I think this argument is making a very good case as to why there are so many denying the existence a God. You see you can argue as much as you like about science and stuff, but i believe where the real reason God is denied is a Moral issue: "Don&#39;t tell me what to do, i don&#39;t like that, i&#39;ll do whatever i like!" I think the argument about sex before marriage goes a long way in exposing that! Many of the arguments "anti-God" so far has carried those exact undertones...
[/b][/quote]

I cannot believe you&#39;ve just ignored 11 pages of people citing constructive reasons for being atheists, and you&#39;ve decided that we&#39;re suddenly all anarchic just because we have sex.

Anyway, this raises an interesting point: you say we reject the idea of &#39;god&#39; because we don&#39;t want to be told what to do. In fact, no &#39;god&#39; is telling anyone anything. You are getting your values from other human beings who you deem to have authority. Priests, parents, teachers. None of them are &#39;god&#39;. So let&#39;s just say we are all hypothetically religious... we&#39;re still being told by other humans, not &#39;god&#39;, what we can and can&#39;t do. Your &#39;god&#39; has never spoken to you. Fact. If you deny this, then you are nutty. Alternatively, and I&#39;ve suspected this for a while, you&#39;re a wind up merchant.

[Juan VdS]

I think we&#39;re not discerning the difference between Ethic and Moral. The Ethic man knows what&#39;s right and what&#39;s wrong, but decides to go for the former to vindicate himself as somebody who abides by the laws created by society; whereas the Moral man only does what&#39;s right.

Why am I saying this? Because the vast majority of people that decide to get legally married do it so that the society will look them with good eyes. Otherwise the pointless snobism will kick in, labelling them as "lovers", something the Church in its almighty wisdom chooses to impose to us as something that is wrong. If "God" needs a paper as proof to give credit to a spiritual bond among people, then I guess Jesus had the Twelve Apostles sign a fidelity contract prior to joining up with him.

The Truth, in my eyes, is that "The Church" has steered away from spiritualism and simplicity, which are crucial to the formation of a well formed society. It&#39;s mutated into an atmosphere of sheer and hypocritical understanding of the true values of mankind. There are of course many people who stay away from that corrosive movement and dedicate their lives to promoting true love and benevolence -- and those are the truly religious ones to me.

The Church is a clear example of The Bed of Procrustes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
No being legally bound does not, which is why you get legally, therefor holy in god&#39;s eyes, and the last one (hopefully) lovingly bound in marriage.[/b]

So our feelings are not holy in "God&#39;s eyes"? If I take my girlfriend and promise her eternal love, without a contract backing this up, I am committing some sort of moral misdemeanor? What about the millions of people that, despite being "legally married"; cheat on each other...?

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419101')</div>
The Truth, in my eyes, is that "The Church" has steered away from spiritualism and simplicity, which are crucial to the formation of a well formed society. It&#39;s mutated into an atmosphere of sheer and hypocritical understanding of the true values of mankind. There are of course many people who stay away from that corrosive movement and dedicate their lives to promoting true love and benevolence -- and those are the truly religious ones to me.[/b]

You&#39;re dead right it had, for ages. But it&#39;s a work in progress, and like you said some are trying to get back to the basics of Christ&#39;s gospel.
Don&#39;t misunderstand me; I don&#39;t run up to people outside the church and point my own dirty fingers at every rotten spot i can see in them and shout : "Repent, and thou shalt be saaaaa-ved!" This is a forum and the topic is on the table and there would be no discussion, if there was not some of us putting the biblical/religious view out there as well. If I did not believe that the Biblical way is better I would truly be a hypocrite, because i would be arguing against myself. But let me assure you that it is not only the church acting inside this "hypocritical understanding of the true values of mankind" hypocrisy is not a Christian sin but a human one. The Christian who drinks and points fingers at drunks, is as guilty of it as the non-Christian who sees the church and says "you&#39;re judging me!" because he is making a judgement of his own!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419101')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
No being legally bound does not, which is why you get legally, therefor holy in god&#39;s eyes, and the last one (hopefully) lovingly bound in marriage.[/b]

So our feelings are not holy in "God&#39;s eyes"? If I take my girlfriend and promise her eternal love, without a contract backing this up, I am committing some sort of moral misdemeanor? What about the millions of people that, despite being "legally married"; cheat on each other...?
[/b][/quote]

God commands us to obey the law of the land (except in the instance where it commands other than what he has made clear in the Bible), now if the law of the land says you are married when you confess your undying love, well then so be it but you&#39;re missing out on a great party if you just do that and have no reception :)
Our feelings get us in a lot of trouble sometimes, just ask everyone who find themselves with unloved/unwanted children or spouses because of feelings. Getting married legally is a sign of maturity and responsibility, no back door option. God knew this and that is why he commanded us to do it. Saying you are going to stay with someone forever is pretty useless considering all our track records with the truth (me included)

And where did I give you any Idea that being legally married makes cheating fine? And if that&#39;s not what you meant with that statement then what...

oh and gingergenius if i seem like i&#39;m trying to wind you up... i&#39;m sorry, not my intention. Guess i&#39;m nuts then, heh?

[BLR]

Christianity went wrong as soon as the Romans took over it, books were censored or thrown out if it did not suit the messages the emperor was trying to convene. Christianity is rooted in pagan traditions which were brought in the ease the transitions of these Romans into the church yet these are the things which are still being promoted as Christianity. The human aspect of Christianity has already made it a lost cause. This is about the word of God after all, yet it seems the grubby fingers of human intervention is all over the religion as it stands. How can you claim to be a divine belief when as a religion the refusal to go back to the roots and continue with these political changes that dirty the religion continues on.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BLR @ Nov 3 2009, 06:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419069')</div>
O&#39;Roth, a question. Creationism is, as you said, the belief in a supernatural creator. Is it not possible this creator was the catalyst and all that came after was in line with Evolution, eg. various mutations to animals, particles etc. etc. to survive in their environment?

This is what I believe anyway, I find the theory of the big bang glosses over the original catalyst, of which surely must exist for the event to even occur. Hence where the creator comes in, although our minds probably can&#39;t comprehend what it actually was, all other attempts are simply following in line with the human made religious falsities such has been made in most of todays religions to suit their own makers political and social needs. (Don&#39;t make me go into examples of the beginning of the Roman and Islamic religions)[/b]
I can&#39;t argue with that idea. I don&#39;t subscribe to it, but I have friends who do. I, in many ways, am a bit of a traditionalist. I personally belive that things started out very orderly. I don&#39;t believe in Chaos becoming Order, for we find in this natural world that Order degrades to Chaos. I think it&#39;s a one way street as stated in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I have no problems with ideas of evolution, as in survival of the fitest where we do see mutations of speicies. However, I don&#39;t think we&#39;ve ever really encountered anything drastic enough to show the sort of evolution that a Chaos or big bang theory would suggest, even if God or a supernatural being were the catalyst.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BLR @ Nov 3 2009, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419119')</div>
Christianity went wrong as soon as the Romans took over it, books were censored or thrown out if it did not suit the messages the emperor was trying to convene. Christianity is rooted in pagan traditions which were brought in the ease the transitions of these Romans into the church yet these are the things which are still being promoted as Christianity. The human aspect of Christianity has already made it a lost cause. This is about the word of God after all, yet it seems the grubby fingers of human intervention is all over the religion as it stands. How can you claim to be a divine belief when as a religion the refusal to go back to the roots and continue with these political changes that dirty the religion continues on.[/b]
Religion, any religion, is supposed to be about a spiritual journey, and expression of faith, a devotion to principles and ethics. Christians are very guilty of letting their faith be more of a statement of culture or tradition than an actual quest for spiritual knowledge.
So, fair enough, with your point. It is up to the "believer" to go on this journey. As St. Paul said to "run the race". Laugh all you guys want but there is a mystic and supernatural side of our faith which we can&#39;t argue logically about. Miracles and conversations with God do make us sound, as someone recently on this forum put it towards jacovw, crazy. All I can say is my personal experience will keep me faithful, regardless of ridicule, speculation, or criticism.
It is the spiritual journey and discipline that Christ encouraged. Many claim to believe in Christ, yet never "take his yoke" or go on this quest.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Nov 3 2009, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419123')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BLR @ Nov 3 2009, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419119')
Christianity went wrong as soon as the Romans took over it, books were censored or thrown out if it did not suit the messages the emperor was trying to convene. Christianity is rooted in pagan traditions which were brought in the ease the transitions of these Romans into the church yet these are the things which are still being promoted as Christianity. The human aspect of Christianity has already made it a lost cause. This is about the word of God after all, yet it seems the grubby fingers of human intervention is all over the religion as it stands. How can you claim to be a divine belief when as a religion the refusal to go back to the roots and continue with these political changes that dirty the religion continues on.[/b]
Religion, any religion, is supposed to be about a spiritual journey, and expression of faith, a devotion to principles and ethics. Christians are very guilty of letting their faith be more of a statement of culture or tradition than an actual quest for spiritual knowledge.
So, fair enough, with your point. It is up to the "believer" to go on this journey. As St. Paul said to "run the race". Laugh all you guys want but there is a mystic and supernatural side of our faith which we can&#39;t argue logically about. Miracles and conversations with God do make us sound, as someone recently on this forum put it towards jacovw, crazy. All I can say is my personal experience will keep me faithful, regardless of ridicule, speculation, or criticism.
It is the spiritual journey and discipline that Christ encouraged. Many claim to believe in Christ, yet never "take his yoke" or go on this quest.
[/b][/quote]


VERY Nicely done!
Well Said

[Juan VdS]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 3 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419109')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419101')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
No being legally bound does not, which is why you get legally, therefor holy in god&#39;s eyes, and the last one (hopefully) lovingly bound in marriage.[/b]

So our feelings are not holy in "God&#39;s eyes"? If I take my girlfriend and promise her eternal love, without a contract backing this up, I am committing some sort of moral misdemeanor? What about the millions of people that, despite being "legally married"; cheat on each other...?
[/b][/quote]

God commands us to obey the law of the land (except in the instance where it commands other than what he has made clear in the Bible), now if the law of the land says you are married when you confess your undying love, well then so be it but you&#39;re missing out on a great party if you just do that and have no reception :)
Our feelings get us in a lot of trouble sometimes, just ask everyone who find themselves with unloved/unwanted children or spouses because of feelings. Getting married legally is a sign of maturity and responsibility, no back door option. God knew this and that is why he commanded us to do it. Saying you are going to stay with someone forever is pretty useless considering all our track records with the truth (me included)

[/b][/quote]

He commands you? How? He made it clear in the Bible? How? When? Where?

No. Society commands you.

How did people get married centuries ago? With a lawyer around? Don&#39;t think so.

Anyway, I suppose I should be thankful to God. Because of his commandment, my Father gets richer every single day in Divorce Litigation (and in 2 years time I&#39;ll bo doing exactly the same).

As for people that found themselves with unwanted children, that&#39;s not because of feelings -- they were retarded enough to ignore something called anticonceptives.

Oh, and the Church should not judge me. Really. At least I don&#39;t live off the people that devote their <strike>money</strike> lives to the Cause. Nor have I given shelter to the worst criminals the world has ever seen. Nor have I systematically murdered millions of innocent people in the last 2000 years.

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419130')</div>
He commands you? How? He made it clear in the Bible? How? When? Where?

No. Society commands you.[/b]

Go read the new testament for yourself, it&#39;s very clear in there! Now you may not believe it to be the word of God, but I do and I try to live according to it, therefore, yes, God commands it, or for your consideration shall i say, the bible commands it?
And please don&#39;t say all that stuff about the bible being unreliable and tainted... i will state it again that it is to this day one of the most reliable (near to original) documents/books in the history of mankind. (I don&#39;t have to prove this the dead sea scrolls and numerous other texts of the new testament proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt!)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419130')</div>
How did people get married centuries ago? With a lawyer around? Don&#39;t think so.[/b]

what does that have to do with anything, who mentioned a lawyer? I said law of the land... what applies in your country/time...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419130')</div>
Anyway, I suppose I should be thankful to God. Because of his commandment, my Father gets richer every single day in Divorce Litigation (and in 2 years time I&#39;ll bo doing exactly the same).

As for people that found themselves with unwanted children, that&#39;s not because of feelings -- they were retarded enough to ignore something called anticonceptives.[/b]

So divorce is God&#39;s fault, but unwanted pregnancy is man&#39;s stupidity... seriously does this make any sense to you?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419130')</div>
Oh, and the Church should not judge me. Really. At least I don&#39;t live off the people that devote their <strike>money</strike> lives to the Cause. Nor have I given shelter to the worst criminals the world has ever seen. Nor have I systematically murdered millions of innocent people in the last 2000 years.[/b]

This was what I was saying: when did the church judge you? And please give me Examples of where the Biblical Church (I say this because a church that hides the bible from the common man, and burns those who say they are wrong is not a biblical model church) did these atrocities.

[Juan VdS]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Go read the new testament for yourself, it&#39;s very clear in there! Now you may not believe it to be the word of God, but I do and I try to live according to it, therefore, yes, God commands it, or for your consideration shall i say, the bible commands it?
And please don&#39;t say all that stuff about the bible being unreliable and tainted... i will state it again that it is to this day one of the most reliable (near to original) documents/books in the history of mankind. (I don&#39;t have to prove this the dead sea scrolls and numerous other texts of the new testament proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt!)[/b]

I&#39;ve read it already. A hundred times, actually. I&#39;ve read every single major religious book out there. God is not the Bible, so yeah, the Bible commands you.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
what does that have to do with anything, who mentioned a lawyer? I said law of the land... what applies in your country/time...[/b]

No, you said that unless a legal contract is used, marriage does not exist.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
So divorce is God&#39;s fault, but unwanted pregnancy is man&#39;s stupidity... seriously does this make any sense to you?[/b]

Actually it does. Getting married just to look legal to the society is as stupid as unwanted pregnancy. You may be that religious yourself, but the vast majority of people see marriage as a "barrier" that is there show how mature they are.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
This was what I was saying: when did the church judge you? And please give me Examples of where the Biblical Church (I say this because a church that hides the bible from the common man, and burns those who say they are wrong is not a biblical model church) did these atrocities.[/b]

The Netherlands? South America? Philippines? Mexico? Spain? Do any of these sound remotely familiar to you? Now... seeing how "The Church" talks about "the fight against poverty" and toys with billions of dollars every year... while millions around the world suffer of the direst needs ever imagined... isn&#39;t that an atrocity?

Again, I don&#39;t need to prove a point. Not at all. In this thread I&#39;ve seen some religious people that I respect a lot. Can&#39;t say the same about everybody though. And given the character of this discussion -- which is endless -- I&#39;ll resort to just move on.

"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow." - Anais Nin

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
No, you said that unless a legal contract is used, marriage does not exist.[/b]

If you can quote me on that i&#39;ll retract everything i said... I specifically said law of the land, ie the legally accepted way in said person&#39;s state, and said person&#39;s time! this will not always require a "contract", although i am for that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Actually it does. Getting married just to look legal to the society is as stupid as unwanted pregnancy. You may be that religious yourself, but the vast majority of people see marriage as a "barrier" that is there show how mature they are.[/b]

You&#39;re right about the first thing here, but i beg you to consider that maybe just maybe our reasons for getting married is a little different than what you may think they are! As for the second part that&#39;s fantasy my friend! "Large number" sure, but "Vast Majority", seriously that&#39;s slightly overstated. Marriage is highly regarded and revered in most of Asia and Africa which already puts any different thinking from the west of the map!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
The Netherlands? South America? Philippines? Mexico? Spain? Do any of these sound remotely familiar to you? Now... seeing how "The Church" talks about "the fight against poverty" and toys with billions of dollars every year... while millions around the world suffer of the direst needs ever imagined... isn&#39;t that an atrocity?[/b]

Please elaborate (unless you honestly want to drop it, i won&#39;t mind) I&#39;m not sure what you are blaming us for.

As a Christian I take full responsibility as far as the money issues go, that has been a big mistake on the part of mega-churches... all of which preach a great gospel but have fallen a little short in the love department, These churches are addressed in Revelation and are accepted as one of the seven churches, yet warned that they must get with the program or else. If the bible recognizes them so do I. But if you read a few posts back you will see that there are churches trying to make a difference. The church I came from spend around 45% of all their income on the community surrounding us... and another 15% on mission trips... that&#39;s 60% of the annual income spent outside the church, where it is needed! These figures were audited by an independent accountant and the books were open for inspection by any member of the church. Many churches run a similar model... so there is hope in that area!

But once again I state that the Christian Church can not be held responsible for atrocities committed in their name by murderers and thieves, Christ himself said that murderers and thieves (people who mindlessly and continuously do these things without repenting) will have no part in his kingdom. That eliminates every person that has murdered for personal gain under the "Christian banner".

That&#39;s like saying all Atheists are murderers, because of Christians being executed (because of what they believe) in Russia, China, Vietnam North Korea etc. etc.

[Sir Speedy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 3 2009, 06:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419138')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419130')
He commands you? How? He made it clear in the Bible? How? When? Where?

No. Society commands you.[/b]

Go read the new testament for yourself, it&#39;s very clear in there! [/b][/quote]
http://theframeproblem.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/break-the-cycle.jpg

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 4 2009, 08:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419161')</div>
That&#39;s like saying all Atheists are murderers, because of Christians being executed (because of what they believe) in Russia, China, Vietnam North Korea etc. etc.[/b]
There&#39;s an interesting argument that state communism is a cult with a religious style system of belief. Same for national socialism. But without the Love bit, obviously!

[Juan VdS]

Well that&#39;s true to a certain extent shtove. National Socialism (the real National Socialism, not that Aryan supremacy crap) held Spiritualism in a very high regard. It was some sort of mix between Aryan paganism, Fundamentalism, Christianism... and other doctrines. Take as example the swastika: the symbol that represents peace and prosperity (water, fire, earth and wind). It&#39;s sick to see how nowadays this symbol raises everybody&#39;s eyebrows. Look at this (http://www.cardcow.com/images/set121/card00199_fr.jpg) greeting card (I didn&#39;t post the image directly as it may be offensive to some people). :mellow:

That beautiful conception of nature mutated into a murdering spree in behalf of "the Aryan Race" -- and was led by somebody who, ironically enough, was not an Aryan himself.

Sir Speedy: I&#39;ll keep that picture in mind. :P

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Nov 3 2009, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419163')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 3 2009, 06:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419138')
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 3 2009, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419130')
He commands you? How? He made it clear in the Bible? How? When? Where?

No. Society commands you.[/b]

Go read the new testament for yourself, it&#39;s very clear in there! [/b][/quote]
http://theframeproblem.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/break-the-cycle.jpg
[/b][/quote]

Funny picture. Circular reasoning has been applied to a few other topics with very equal accuracy... and in the middle of that circle should be a big bold FAITH.

[shazbooger]

No idea why I&#39;m bothering. Every valid point we raise is ignored because it cant actually be debated. I though Gingers last post summed it all up for me. 11 pages ignored.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BLR @ Nov 3 2009, 06:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419069')</div>
O&#39;Roth, a question. Creationism is, as you said, the belief in a supernatural creator. Is it not possible this creator was the catalyst and all that came after was in line with Evolution, eg. various mutations to animals, particles etc. etc. to survive in their environment?

This is what I believe anyway, I find the theory of the big bang glosses over the original catalyst, of which surely must exist for the event to even occur. Hence where the creator comes in[/b]
Meh, another chicken and egg thoery. What was the catylyst for the Creator (who acted as the catylyst for the universe). Somewhere we have to throw in an unknown. Common sense says throw it in at the earliest place so as opposed to asking what unknown created the unknown that created the universe? Just ask what unknown created the catylyst and acknowledge that we havent a clue. To speculate about a god like figure in there is just stupid, pretending that that god like figure is real is insane.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Nov 3 2009, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419161')</div>
If you can quote me on that i&#39;ll retract everything i said... I specifically said law of the land, ie the legally accepted way in said person&#39;s state, and said person&#39;s time! this will not always require a "contract", although i am for that.[/b]
For a civil partnership to be recognised by the state it has to be set out in a contract (though I&#39;m not sure how things work in the tribes of the amazon etc). Looks like another exercise in pedantics to me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 3 2009, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419175')</div>
There&#39;s an interesting argument that state communism is a cult with a religious style system of belief. Same for national socialism.[/b]
Sounds like common sense to me. Religion has shown the way, the rest are just failed imitations but built on the same kind of thinking.

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Nov 5 2009, 12:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419248')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 3 2009, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419175')
There&#39;s an interesting argument that state communism is a cult with a religious style system of belief. Same for national socialism.[/b]
Sounds like common sense to me. Religion has shown the way, the rest are just failed imitations but built on the same kind of thinking.
[/b][/quote]
Are you saying we have agreement? OMFG! If you&#39;ll excuse the phrase. :P

Should have added this one as well - the third way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Neo-corporatism) whereby government, banks, and state employees operate a scam on everyone else. I fear this one hasn&#39;t failed. Judging by what central banks and governments have done recently, Mussolini was right.

Apart from the creepy embrace of the state, the only consolation is faith. Sadly, I do not have it.

[Prestwick]

As long as you have to believe in a person, a system, a set of values or a higher being then you can call anything from Castros Cuba all the way to the New Zealand All Blacks a cult.

Why do you think the major religions ensured a monopoly in less tolerant times by outlawing idolatry?

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Nov 4 2009, 10:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419339')</div>
Why do you think the major religions ensured a monopoly in less tolerant times by outlawing idolatry?[/b]
My god have you read any of what the lunatic fringe posted. GOD TOLD THEM! THATS WHY!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 4 2009, 09:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419338')</div>
Are you saying we have agreement? OMFG! If you&#39;ll excuse the phrase. :P[/b]
Well I wouldnt get too excited. If I was being pedantic (as I have been known to be on occasion) I could say I was just agreeing with the person who originally came up with the interesting arguement, not necessarily yourself. In fact it could be said the only reason I quoted you was to ensure that you passed the message back to the original poster of the forementioned interesting arguement.

[Jer1cho]

God doesn&#39;t provoke violence, people do.

God doesn&#39;t cause wars, religious conflicts, suffering, or global crisis. We do.

Religion is only as valid as it&#39;s followers, which is why i choose not to fall under any of them. I prefer to have my own views on the creator of the Universe. Screw the Bible, screw religion, and screw people.

It&#39;s up to you as an individual to build a relationship with God, regardless of what anyone, or anything says.

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Nov 5 2009, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419386')</div>
God doesn&#39;t provoke violence, people do.[/b]
God doesnt because God doesnt exist, but religion does.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Nov 5 2009, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419386')</div>
God doesn&#39;t cause wars, religious conflicts, suffering, or global crisis. We do.[/b]
God doesnt because God doesnt exist, but religion does.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Nov 5 2009, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419386')</div>
It&#39;s up to you as an individual to build a relationship with God, regardless of what anyone, or anything says.[/b]
So your just making up your own religion then, or are you just another prophet? Should we expect a book release soon?

[Jer1cho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Nov 5 2009, 02:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419397')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Nov 5 2009, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419386')
God doesn&#39;t provoke violence, people do.[/b]
God doesnt because God doesnt exist, but religion does.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Nov 5 2009, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419386')</div>
God doesn&#39;t cause wars, religious conflicts, suffering, or global crisis. We do.[/b]
God doesnt because God doesnt exist, but religion does.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Nov 5 2009, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419386')</div>
It&#39;s up to you as an individual to build a relationship with God, regardless of what anyone, or anything says.[/b]
So your just making up your own religion then, or are you just another prophet? Should we expect a book release soon?
[/b][/quote]

All i&#39;m saying, is that i don&#39;t need a book, or people, or a set of rules to tell me what to believe. The only honest answer i can give, is that i don&#39;t know. Nobody has the knowledge, proof, or understanding to say that &#39;God exists or doesn&#39;t exist&#39; as a fact.

It&#39;s all based on a decision that you yourself have made, thanks to whatever influence you had in your life. I don&#39;t believe in the God christianity describes, but at the same time, i don&#39;t believe that saying there is not a God, is a fact.

Sometimes i look at the stars, and wonder what the hell? We are on this planet. Randomly, with all sorts of intelligence, all sorts of inventions, all sorts of luxuries. Then, we die. What the hell for? Why do we know what we know, and why does it feel like we are not just here for the sake of &#39;living&#39;?

Some things we just can&#39;t understand.

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Nov 5 2009, 04:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419384')</div>
My god have you read any of what the lunatic fringe posted. GOD TOLD THEM! THATS WHY![/b]
I didn&#39;t think you had a God. ...and "lunatic fringe", really? So believing in God now makes us Lunatics?

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Nov 6 2009, 12:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419401')</div>
Sometimes i look at the stars, and wonder what the hell? We are on this planet. Randomly, with all sorts of intelligence, all sorts of inventions, all sorts of luxuries. Then, we die. What the hell for? Why do we know what we know, and why does it feel like we are not just here for the sake of 'living'?[/b]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JWVshkVF0SY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JWVshkVF0SY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Steve-o]

That&#39;s just human emotion and imagination. There&#39;s no romantic ending to the story. Just like people that lived 3000 years ago, you will die, turn into worm food, and eventually be forgotten. Unless you&#39;re Hitler or Yoko Ono.

[Juan VdS]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Nov 5 2009, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419426')</div>
That&#39;s just human emotion and imagination. There&#39;s no romantic ending to the story. Just like people that lived 3000 years ago, you will die, turn into worm food, and eventually be forgotten. Unless you&#39;re Hitler or Yoko Ono.[/b]

...or Matt Dunning. :mellow:

Joking aside, I agree with Jer1cho&#39;s feelings. That is the most beautiful thing in life, is it not? The fact that we will eventually die someday makes everything more enjoyable and marvellous. Life is like an endless reverence to the mortality of all things surrounding us.

[O'Rothlain]

...I&#39;ve personally decided I want a Viking Funeral. Maybe I&#39;ll reach Valhalla that way.

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juan VdS @ Nov 5 2009, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419439')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Nov 5 2009, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419426')
That&#39;s just human emotion and imagination. There&#39;s no romantic ending to the story. Just like people that lived 3000 years ago, you will die, turn into worm food, and eventually be forgotten. Unless you&#39;re Hitler or Yoko Ono.[/b]

...or Matt Dunning. mellow.gif

Joking aside, I agree with Jer1cho&#39;s feelings. That is the most beautiful thing in life, is it not? The fact that we will eventually die someday makes everything more enjoyable and marvellous. Life is like an endless reverence to the mortality of all things surrounding us.
[/b][/quote]

Yeah it does, it makes you appreciated the now, and live in the now (within reason!), and you can face the future with little or no stress because of it.
That was just my "bare knuckle" realist approach. It might seem negative but I guess it&#39;s how you take the news.

That realization, of my pending death and that I&#39;m in control about how I can feel about, really changed my outlook on life.
Worrying about what the future holds and what happened in the past is fruitless and frustrating. If you do what you need & want to do in the present the future tends to take care of itself and what happened in the past doesn&#39;t really matter. You also get this weird sense of connection with what&#39;s going on around you, because you not always looking for the &#39;next&#39; or feeling insecure about the past. The only thing that really in your control of is how you react to the present.

People need to stop worry about why we here or where we come from. Nobody has solved those questions and they will probably never be answered. Take that burden off your mind, it&#39;s an energy draining question that gives you a sense of helplessness.
But that&#39;s just me, I rate I&#39;d make a good hippy!

It&#39;s easier said than done though! It&#39;s hard to keep a balance that is healthy and beneficial.





BTW that vid was top notch shtove :lol:

[BLR]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Nov 4 2009, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419248')</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BLR @ Nov 3 2009, 06:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419069')
O&#39;Roth, a question. Creationism is, as you said, the belief in a supernatural creator. Is it not possible this creator was the catalyst and all that came after was in line with Evolution, eg. various mutations to animals, particles etc. etc. to survive in their environment?

This is what I believe anyway, I find the theory of the big bang glosses over the original catalyst, of which surely must exist for the event to even occur. Hence where the creator comes in[/b]
Meh, another chicken and egg thoery. What was the catylyst for the Creator (who acted as the catylyst for the universe). Somewhere we have to throw in an unknown. Common sense says throw it in at the earliest place so as opposed to asking what unknown created the unknown that created the universe? Just ask what unknown created the catylyst and acknowledge that we havent a clue. To speculate about a god like figure in there is just stupid, pretending that that god like figure is real is insane.[/b][/quote]
Nah, absolutely, I believe there is some unknown catalyst that we will ever be able to comprehend and pretty much cant be explained by science. Which I suppose is kind of just an extension of what science tries to put across, I dunno, it&#39;s a null point, it hurts my head.

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Nov 6 2009, 12:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419401')</div>
Sometimes i look at the stars, and wonder what the hell? We are on this planet. Randomly, with all sorts of intelligence, all sorts of inventions, all sorts of luxuries. Then, we die. What the hell for? Why do we know what we know, and why does it feel like we are not just here for the sake of &#39;living&#39;?[/b]

I often feel like religion is created because people cannot answer the &#39;meaning of life&#39;.

Obviously, if you say that your purpose is to do the work of &#39;god&#39; then you have a meaning already. All religions I&#39;ve heard of contain some sort of process for reward/ punishment after death. Therefore, the religion gives your life meaning: it is a test that you must pass in order to reap the benefits in the future.

However, after the enlightment, Nietzsche said &#39;God is dead&#39;. If there is no (longer) a &#39;god&#39;, then what can be the meaning of life? From this, Camus and the existentialists decided that there is no meaning. Read L&#39;Etranger: "Il m&#39;a dit que c&#39;était impossible, que tous les hommes croyaient en Dieu, même ceux qui se détournaient de son visage. C&#39;était là sa conviction et, s&#39;il devait jamais en douter, sa vie n&#39;aurait plus de sens".

But life with no meaning is nihilistic. Along those lines, you might as well kill yourself straightaway for all the good it will do. The existantialists said that in the absence of true meaning, the individual must create a meaning for himself.

So, put this to my own view: I do not believe in any supernatural beings. Therefore, there is no meaning to my life. However, I enjoy many things about being &#39;alive&#39;. The pleasure you get from the entire plethora of &#39;things&#39; in the world, from emotional relationships with people to enjoying a bag of crisps. So, the years I spend alive are there for me to carve my own meaning and direction, and do what I want to do with my own life (not in the selfish way). This is why politics is so important; so we can maximise the oppurtunity for every human to make the most of their lifetime and fullfill their own meanings to life.

[melon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O&#39;Rothlain @ Nov 6 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419403')</div>
I didn&#39;t think you had a God. ...and "lunatic fringe", really? So believing in God now makes us Lunatics?[/b]
Couldn&#39;t have put it better myself.

That is all.

[St Helens RLFC]

There&#39;s too much intolerance in this thread.

[BLR]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 6 2009, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ('index.php?act=findpost&pid=419525')</div>
Read L&#39;Etranger: "Il m&#39;a dit que c&#39;était impossible, que tous les hommes croyaient en Dieu, même ceux qui se détournaient de son visage. C&#39;était là sa conviction et, s&#39;il devait jamais en douter, sa vie n&#39;aurait plus de sens".[/b]
.....seriously?