Your faith is false

[aBIGsheep]

http://www.thepaincomics.com/Science%20vs.%20Norse.jpg

[skasian]

Do you study science? Dont you know that science in fact is an invention of mankind to explain only some of the matter in the world? Dont you know that science is always uncertain and there are so many limitations on it? Dont you know that science's theories are never facts as one piece of evidence can crumble them into pieces? Does science explain the nature of emotion such love and hatred and why some of these causes certain chemicals to be produced in the body? Why do you think that there are millions of scientists in the world that are scratching their heads for a cure for tumors and AIDs? Why do you think researchers are continuous finding out "mysterious" theories that the earth is actually younger than they thought? Why do you think that science is so unsatiable when it comes down to explaining the meaning of life? And how can you be so sure that some faiths are false when infact you never experienced an spiritual experience that cannot be explained by science?

Forgive me if I have been a little bit direct, but never ever in the religious forum advocate pathetically that peoples faith are false when in fact you dont know anything about them. Go back to primary school and learn something called RESPECT.

[xlxlauraxlx]

What caused the big bang?

[skasian]

Big bang is a big made up theory by mankind. It cannot be proved and all religious people believe that there was no such thing. The big bang provides mankind as a start of a setence to all beginning. They need a startingmark to define what comes when and what comes next.

[aBIGsheep]

Do you study science? Dont you know that science in fact is an invention of mankind to explain only some of the matter in the world? Dont you know that science is always uncertain and there are so many limitations on it?
Yes, yes very true. That is the point of progress, am I right? I like how try and turn this into an argument, or maybe something negative. But those two sentences are the most basic principles of science. Thanks for reiterating.


Dont you know that science's theories are never facts as one piece of evidence can crumble them into pieces?
Is that not the wonder of science? It is always striving to re-edit and out do itself. It shows a real want for learning and change. If something is going to be thwarted and put off as wrong, isn't it reasonable to deduce that something more coherent would replace it's steed? Thank you Science.


Does science explain the nature of emotion such love and hatred and why some of these causes certain chemicals to be produced in the body?
Uh, what? I think you just answered your question inside of the question. Love and hatred are chemical reactions. Dontcha know what depression is and roid rage? Go smoke a blunt or something and get a little euphoria in the mix while you're at it.


Why do you think that there are millions of scientists in the world that are scratching their heads for a cure for tumors and AIDs?
Because they want to save lives. Tell me how the Bible will find a cure for a tumor or AIDs. At least scientists are actually working towards something helpful. What does a Bible do? Sit around and be religious.


Why do you think researchers are continuous finding out "mysterious" theories that the earth is actually younger than they thought?
Then what does that have to do with religion? Other than the God-creating-the-universe-in7-days parallel, scientists believing the world is much younger is another theory of SCIENCE. So, maybe the world is smaller. Maybe the God made a woman from a man's rib cage. That's wonderful. Go prove it to me somewhere else outside of a Bible. It's another theory to be considered and more than likely debunked. You're almost contradicting yourself by saying that science is, oh my sweet Mary, actually right and supporting religion.

And please, show me an article where this theory is expressed. I'm pretty curious.


Why do you think that science is so unsatiable when it comes down to explaining the meaning of life? And how can you be so sure that some faiths are false when infact you never experienced an spiritual experience that cannot be explained by science?

I don't have much of a faith. But I'll let you know, I have my own. Isn't that the ultimate meaning to life? Finding your own way, striving your path, and ultimately finding your own happiness? I've looked into the other faiths, I've looked at life. I take what I like, and I try and live by them. I don't need a single set of rules to hold me down and make me a good person. A person can have his or her own beliefs about the world.
If it's by a sacred text, I'm happy for you. I'll stick to my own thoughts and opinions.

O' and why you're here, look into psychology. That might explain your spiritual experience.

The original post was a joke. Get over it. Read the comic and enjoy.


Big bang is a big made up theory by mankind. It cannot be proved and all religious people believe that there was no such thing. The big bang provides mankind as a start of a setence to all beginning. They need a startingmark to define what comes when and what comes next.

They came up with evidence to argue against the big bang not too long ago. I'll search for the article if you so desire.

[xlxlauraxlx]

hmmm what evidence is there against the big bang?

[aBIGsheep]

Google search go!

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
http://www.rense.com/general61/bbang.htm

The first one seems more credible with its citations.

[xlxlauraxlx]

ta ill read it now

[skasian]

Yes, yes very true. That is the point of progress, am I right? I like how try and turn this into an argument, or maybe something negative. But those two sentences are the most basic principles of science. That's for reiterating.


Is that not the wonder of science? It is always striving to re-edit and out do itself. It shows a real want for learning and change. If something is going to be thwarted and put off as wrong, isn't it reasonable to deduce that something more coherent would replace it's steed? Thank you Science.


Uh, what? I think you just answered your question inside of the question. Love and hatred are chemical reactions. Dontcha know what depression is and roid rage? Go smoke a blunt or something and get a little euphoria in the mix while you're at it.


Because they want to save lives. Tell me how the Bible will find a cure for a tumor or AIDs. At least scientists are actually working towards something helpful. What does a Bible do? Sit around and be religious.


Then what does that have to do with religion? Other than the God-creating-the-universe-in7-days parallel, scientists believing the world is much younger is another theory of SCIENCE. So, maybe the world is smaller. Maybe the God made a woman from a man's rib cage. That's wonderful. Go prove it to me somewhere else outside of a Bible. It's another theory to be considered and more than likely debunked. You're almost contradicting yourself by saying that science is, oh my sweet Mary, actually right and supporting religion.

And please, show me an article where this theory is expressed. I'm pretty curious.



I don't have much of a faith. But I'll let you know, I have my own. Isn't that the ultimate meaning to life? Finding your own way, striving your path, and ultimately finding your own happiness? I've looked into the other faiths, I've looked at life. I take what I like, and I try and live by them. I don't need a single set of rules to hold me down and make me a good person. A person can have his or her own beliefs about the world.
If it's by a sacred text, I'm happy for you. I'll stick to my own thoughts and opinions.

O' and why you're here, look into psychology. That might explain your spiritual experience.

The original post was a joke. Get over it. Read the comic and enjoy.

Do you know the basis of an arguement or debating? What is your point? Rather than arguing each an every sentence what I say, why dont you make a fixed valid point that "Your faith is false", or support the big bang theory. You have no idea. Plus, from the beginning of your sentence, you admitted I was CORRECT.

You have just admitted that science is infact just a theory and cant be absolutely proved and cannot be related to religion, therefore religion cannot be false. Love and hatred is not chemical reaction, it is more than that and IF if was a chemical reaction, how come there is no chemical reaction that can prove this?

Let please state that science is not ALWAYS wrong, but in this context about big bang and the formation of life that is WRONG. I have indeed a great passion to science, esp in biology and psychology and I have excelled at science in high school. But it cannot get in the way of religion because you know what, science cannot ever touch the spiritual level. And we all know that with out the spirit, the physical body is nothing but a carcass.

And please, read what I wrote carefully and refer to it correctly. I never asked for your opinions in the meaning of life, I was remarking that science do not have an equation or solution for the meaning of life.

Psychology do not explain the spiritual experiences religious people have and yes religion solves diseases and illness science cannot cure. Its called miracles.

I dont care if your posting is a lame joke or not. Its the title of the thread that is wrong and should be deleted.

This will be the end of me arguing pointlessly in this pathetic thread to an incompetent person.

[xlxlauraxlx]

perhaps he was just making a statement to debate??

[aBIGsheep]

Do you know the basis of an arguement or debating? What is your point? Rather than arguing each an every sentence what I say, why dont you make a fixed valid point that "Your faith is false", or support the big bang theory. You have no idea. Plus, from the beginning of your sentence, you admitted I was CORRECT.

The title wasn't meant to be serious. Do you not see the comic? Do you not see the whimsical pictures of a Norse god? Fix your panties and stop trying to debate. Which you're not doing all that great of a job. You're not debating, you're just going out and reiterating everything that science is or posing a question for science. And yes, what you first said was VERY correct. Let's have a party.


You have just admitted that science is infact just a theory and cant be absolutely proved and cannot be related to religion, therefore religion cannot be false. Love and hatred is not chemical reaction, it is more than that and IF if was a chemical reaction, how come there is no chemical reaction that can prove this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/mar/12/humanbehaviour.psychology
Go read this article. And by the way, what else is emotion? What more is it? Tell me, enlighten me, I'd really love to know.

And your argument that because Science is wrong so Religion must be right is illogical. I wish I had something to say, but it doesn't make sense.

O' and think of this.
The Theory of God.

Take that for a spin.


Let please state that science is not ALWAYS wrong, but in this context about big bang and the formation of life that is WRONG. I have indeed a great passion to science, esp in biology and psychology and I have excelled at science in high school.
I'm happy you like school so much. It doesn't merit much other than you paid attention in class. You're just beating a dead horse.


But it cannot get in the way of religion because you know what, science cannot ever touch the spiritual level. And we all know that with out the spirit, the physical body is nothing but a carcass.

Yes, yes it can. Did you know that the oracle of Delphi in ancient Greece, the most renown oracle in age old Europe, actually lived beside ethanol vents? Miss Delphi was believed to go down into the vents and get a high from all the ethanol and see hallucinations. Amazingly, many of her hallucinations accurately depicted future events. Terror attacks and 2012 maybe?


And please, read what I wrote carefully and refer to it correctly. I never asked for your opinions in the meaning of life, I was remarking that science do not have an equation or solution for the meaning of life.

And suddenly just because an old book finally has an answer to the question, it's right? Please, tell me, how blind is that? Tell me, what is the meaning of life? Blow my mind. I want to finally have some meaning.
There are so many things I can say about what you wrote.


Psychology do not explain the spiritual experiences religious people have and yes religion solves diseases and illness science cannot cure. Its called miracles.
Ugh. How dependable is a miracle? Maybe if pray harder this gash on my face will disappear.
Go read. http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/psymove.html




I dont care if your posting is a lame joke or not. Its the title of the thread that is wrong and should be deleted.

This will be the end of me arguing pointlessly in this pathetic thread to an incompetent person.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh the irony. You need to loosen your bum, buddy.

[Drkshadow03]

all religious people believe that there was no such thing.

Speak for yourself . . .


Fix your panties and stop trying to debate.

Is there any reason for the sexist remarks?

[Silas Thorne]

Ha ha ha! I love the cartoon, especially when the great Odin destroys the scientist debating his existence. :)

[Jozanny]

Sheep may have been making a joke, and I can see where the thread title may cause indignation, but I do not get the squabble. Accepting the Big Bang as an event in no way threatens an individual faith. If you accept that time is a progression, and I certainly do, then you can accept that there was an explosion at a certain point in time, which caused matter and energy to interact. How this threatens faith in your deity is beyond me. Catholicism itself accepts that the Bible is part moral allegory and that evolution is entirely compatible with divine plans.

I do not buy into any theology, but that does not mean belief and science cannot co-exist. Some scientists put a good deal of work into their apologias for theism.

[aBIGsheep]

Sheep may have been making a joke, and I can see where the thread title may cause indignation, but I do not get the squabble. Accepting the Big Bang as an event in no way threatens an individual faith. If you accept that time is a progression, and I certainly do, then you can accept that there was an explosion at a certain point in time, which caused matter and energy to interact. How this threatens faith in your deity is beyond me. Catholicism itself accepts that the Bible is part moral allegory and that evolution is entirely compatible with divine plans.

I do not buy into any theology, but that does not mean belief and science cannot co-exist. Some scientists put a good deal of work into their apologias for theism.

Well said. High five for you.

[Shield&Sword]

Here is a story:
Once upon a time there was a cell (from far far away) in deep deep sea (how sea come is another story). This cell existed in the era of "good luck"*.
This cell began to become bigger and bigger for no reason, just because "she" is lucky.
and one day it woke up a fish, lived happily in sea for long time, but you know routine is ugly so she decided to take a walk on land, but "she" couldnt breath, but being in the "good luck era" gave her the courage and determination so "she" waited nearly million of year and she got her adbvanced lung full option.
Every fish in the sea thought that the fish who want to take a walk wont make it, but after the lung thing they all were surprised and knew that in good luck era you can expect any thing.
So our hero fish jumped on land in a historical day. Lets see our hero fish:
The hero fish is saying "That's one small step for a fish, one giant leap for fishes".
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/dre0141l.jpg

Great moments in our ancestor's life.

The rest of the story you all know it, fish-->lizard-->birds and mammals.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rbr/lowres/rbrn15l.jpg

And finally mankind Family tree:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/gpi0036l.jpg

And we are ancestors of:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/cgo/lowres/cgon349l.jpg

*"good luck era": time when everything was lucky, if man existed in that era he could win lottery everytime he play. This era terminated but "scientists" could not determine when

[Silas Thorne]

I can also see a deep philosophical point being made by the cartoon. ;)

Although we would like to believe human beings are entirely logical animals, this is not true. We could use all the logic in the world to persuade someone that they are wrong according to all the evidence that we have, but they still might brain us with an axe. :lol:

We can in a way read the cartoon as proving the existence of Odin (divinity), for the scientist is unable to argue with the god that manifests himself in front of him and cleaves his head in two. This could mean that there are no logical arguments to disprove the divine.

Come on, I'm talking too much.. someone get out their axe! :)

Incidentally, the symbolism of splitting the head in two is significant, for there is a split between reason and passion in all of us.. I believe this is the point that Odin was making when.....


:crash: Thonk! AHHH!

Those points were about the first cartoon, as you can see.;)

[Zee.]

Apparantly, atoms which are free moving, that is, they have "freewill" can now be controlled for a small yet significant period of time.
Einstein's discovery.


I guess in that sense, science does touch spirituality. It manipulates it.


Do you know the basis of an arguement or debating? What is your point? Rather than arguing each an every sentence what I say, why dont you make a fixed valid point that "Your faith is false", or support the big bang theory. You have no idea. Plus, from the beginning of your sentence, you admitted I was CORRECT.

You have just admitted that science is infact just a theory and cant be absolutely proved and cannot be related to religion, therefore religion cannot be false. Love and hatred is not chemical reaction, it is more than that and IF if was a chemical reaction, how come there is no chemical reaction that can prove this?

Let please state that science is not ALWAYS wrong, but in this context about big bang and the formation of life that is WRONG. I have indeed a great passion to science, esp in biology and psychology and I have excelled at science in high school. But it cannot get in the way of religion because you know what, science cannot ever touch the spiritual level. And we all know that with out the spirit, the physical body is nothing but a carcass.

And please, read what I wrote carefully and refer to it correctly. I never asked for your opinions in the meaning of life, I was remarking that science do not have an equation or solution for the meaning of life.

Psychology do not explain the spiritual experiences religious people have and yes religion solves diseases and illness science cannot cure. Its called miracles.

I dont care if your posting is a lame joke or not. Its the title of the thread that is wrong and should be deleted.

This will be the end of me arguing pointlessly in this pathetic thread to an incompetent person.


He accepted one of your points, don't get too ahead of yourself.

No one is arguing that science rules the world, or that it can explain the unknown, or spiritual experiences, but it's a hell of a lot more reliable than a book.

Also, your comment about miracles.
Tell me how often they occur? i mean, in comparison to the millions of lives science has both saved and improved.

[Saladin]

The problem is that some religious people think that science is a contradiction to their belief system. Believing in the evolution theory or Big Bang is not a contradiction of a persons belief. As a religious person myself (muslim) and since i have great interest for science (biology especially) i consider the evolution theory for being a plausible. There is a reason why it`s called a theory. Science is not a substitute to religion as many religious people think (therefore they say science is the "new" religion). Science is meant to explain what is all around us and our existence not to find final solutions or answers on our existence, but to find answers that can take us closer to an understanding of our existence.

I consider most creationists, especially those of them that are "fanatic" for being irrational. Of course there is a lot things that science doesn`t explain us, but that is because we haven`t reached that level yet. I personally cant for example believe that the earth were created in 6 days or that the earth is 6000 years old, and that is not because i dont believe in what the Koran says, but because the Koran doesnt say that the earth is 6000 years old or it were created in 6 days. What is most essential and important for me is that there is a God behind this creation, not when or how he created it, that is pointly irrelevant.

Regarding the title of this thread. There is nothing "provocative" or "indignation" with it. If someone tell me that my belief is false, then i ask for an argumentation from that person. We must just accept that people have other understanding of our belief then we do. What drives our world is a healthy and constructive dialog on this. Criticism is good also. We should actually fear the day when people are afraid of criticizing organised religion, because that will be a bad day. Religion have to be criticized, and religious people have to be criticized, but this critic must be constructive and not childish "gibberish".I am not writing this because you guys need my blessing to do it, but just to explain my point of view on all of this.

This was my two cents.:D

[JBI]

The faith is not false, as the faith is not necessarily bad. Asimov wrote an interesting short story about a robot who thought he was god on a spaceship, and yet managed to get on with his life, and do what was required of his post, because in the end, what he believed didn't matter, just the outcome.

Humanity is like that to - spirituality, and the desire for a meaningful existence is central to the human vision. Even non-theist beliefs, like Buddhism realize this, and make enlightenment, and fulfillment the true objective.

That being said, I do not believe in a God, and I, to an extent, believe the science I can understand, but quite frankly, that doesn't rule out a sense of spirituality, or of meaning.

In truth, if you take away faith, and not just faith in a God(s) then you end up with a pretty dreary nihilistic vision.

In that snese, Skasian is right in insisting that science can never touch the spiritual. Science cannot explain everything - when it becomes merely numbers it becomes silly. Equating love to a mathematical formula is a silly understanding - it gets one no where.


That being said, I do advocate the teaching of science, and I am a critic of religion, and like I said, a non-believer, and elsewhere, a border-line atheist. But in truth, many religious people are happier than I am, and I do not think my unbelief gets in the way of my pursuit of happiness, which in truth is governed by a kind of faith, being that all the unknown, and all projections of the future are faith-driven.

[lupe]

I agree with the main points of the last two posts. However, there is unfortunately very little things we can do to have "a healthy and constructive dialog" as Saladin put it, with persons such as Skasian. They have decided that whatever the proofs presented, we must believe what it's in the book, because "science can not touch" religion or spirituality...

If I say to Skasian that I have a cream in my refrigerator that can may you invisible, she will at least ask me for some sort of proofs.

But if she tells me that near her bed there is a book that has been written by an invisible power that before created all we can see and all we cannot see from nothing, and that it's constantly observe all of us, answer our prayers and judge on our moral values, then I should not dare ask for proofs. I don't get it? Naturally, it's not meant to be understood... that's the power of god!

I'm sorry aBigSheep, it's not psychology that Skasian needs; rather psychiatry. But then again, if one person has hallucinations, we call it schizophrenia. If many have the same, we call it religion.

[Zee.]

I disagree that science does not touch spirituality.

[Caspa]

I can't say that I don't agree with you, but putting forward your argument in such a manner is extremely disrespectful to those people whom hold beliefs... Especially when you obviously don't know anything about faith and religion.

Science may say how this earth was created, but then that leads on to the question... why did it happen?

(Though at risk of sounding like a hypocrite, I actually thought the cartoon was pretty cool)

[Zee.]

Did i say that it explained such a question? did i say that it holds all the answers? of course not. I'm an extremely spiritual person - so of course i know science does not touch it on many levels. But science can explain certain energy and its movement - energy holds a strong place in my beliefs. But, like i said MY beliefs.

[Caspa]

Apologies, I did mean the original poster. I feel stupid now, haha.

[aBIGsheep]

I feel stupid making a thread that was meant to be a joke.

[Silas Thorne]

I feel stupid making a thread that was meant to be a joke.

Well, once you tried to defend it, you opened up the gaping maw of religious debate.

Maybe you should have just thrown it on the ground and ran. :D

[Taliesin]

Apparantly, atoms which are free moving, that is, they have "freewill" can now be controlled for a small yet significant period of time.
Einstein's discovery.


I guess in that sense, science does touch spirituality. It manipulates it.

Could I see a reference to the work(s) where he discovered that? I haven't noticed such kind of work and am quite surprised at something like this.

[Saladin]

I'm sorry aBigSheep, it's not psychology that Skasian needs; rather psychiatry. But then again, if one person has hallucinations, we call it schizophrenia. If many have the same, we call it religion.

Well it`s nice that you agree with my post, but your last part is exactly proving my point (healthy and constructive dialogue). Do you consider it to be constructive to call people which have a religious belief for being mentally sick? Skasian might have strong opnions regarding her own belief, but that doesn`t necessarily mean she got schizophrenia or another mental disease. That is uncalled of you.

[Zee.]

Could I see a reference to the work(s) where he discovered that? I haven't noticed such kind of work and am quite surprised at something like this.

Of course you may - im going to need some time to find it, however, as i dont remember where it was listed off the top of my head. I'll message it to you when i do find it.


Apologies, I did mean the original poster. I feel stupid now, haha.

No I feel stupid. My comment did not mean to sound so nasty.

[Delta40]

Didn't someone say when you talk to God it's called praying but when God talks to you, it's called madness?

[lupe]

Didn't someone say when you talk to God it's called praying but when God talks to you, it's called madness?

Exactly, but then we are surrounded by millions of madmen, it's really scary!

So, Saladin, you are right, I apologize fro the previous strong language. Skasian does not need any psychiatrist, alas, she is absolutely "normal".

[blazeofglory]

No faith is false as you said.

[kandaurov]

Just a question, very off-topic I'm afraid: why can we debate religion, which is based on belief and dogmas, and not politics? In the forum, I mean.

[Redzeppelin]

Exactly, but then we are surrounded by millions of madmen, it's really scary!

So, Saladin, you are right, I apologize fro the previous strong language. Skasian does not need any psychiatrist, alas, she is absolutely "normal".

My, how magnanimous of you to allow normalcy to someone who believes something that you don't. The worst "Christians" in the world are those who walk around finger wagging, telling nonbelievers that they're "going to hell." But nonbelievers who resort to the "insanity" charge are no better - and that doesn't assist in helping one take the "high road" - you know: the path that the supposedly more "enlightened" and "open-minded" nonbelievers imply that they travel?

[lupe]

My, how magnanimous of you to allow normalcy to someone who believes something that you don't. The worst "Christians" in the world are those who walk around finger wagging, telling nonbelievers that they're "going to hell." But nonbelievers who resort to the "insanity" charge are no better - and that doesn't assist in helping one take the "high road" - you know: the path that the supposedly more "enlightened" and "open-minded" nonbelievers imply that they travel?

You choose to ignore a slight detail, dear Redzeppelin, which makes all the difference: my ideas and beliefs do not subject anyone to a certain behaviour, do not establish absolute “truths” and subsequent moral regulations, and – more importantly – have not led to this tremendous suffering that human history has witnessed throughout the centuries.

Anyone in good faith knows what was (and still is) the role of religious faith on this matters. And anyone can then choose what is normal...

[Delta40]

You choose to ignore a slight detail, dear Redzeppelin, which makes all the difference: my ideas and beliefs do not subject anyone to a certain behaviour, do not establish absolute “truths” and subsequent moral regulations, and – more importantly – have not led to this tremendous suffering that human history has witnessed throughout the centuries.

Anyone in good faith knows what was (and still is) the role of religious faith on this matters. And anyone can then choose what is normal...

Do you mean lupe that your beliefs, which dictate your practices don't subject others to form certain behaviours? Are you saying you don't shape and influence people? Most importantly, are you saying your practices, fueled by your beliefs (whatever they be) do not contribute toward the suffering of others?

[blp]

Just a question, very off-topic I'm afraid: why can we debate religion, which is based on belief and dogmas, and not politics? In the forum, I mean.

My guess is it's because politics would mean the forum risks being blocked by certain countries. The forum rules do actually prohibit general religious debate and, when the matter comes up, mods will emphasise that this section is solely for the discussion of actual religious texts, but it seems to be very difficult to police this or, perhaps, there's just no real need to except to shut down instances of abusiveness. That said, I once had a thread closed here after just three pages and I don't think there was anything abusive in it and it was about an actual text - Hitchens' God is not Great. Certainly, everyone on the atheist side stuck rigidly to logic and empirical evidence and I, for one, had no problem with the way any of the religious people who posted commented either. The only explanation given was the usual links to the forum rules. The problem may have been that it came too close to touching on current events, but I can only guess.

[Jozanny]

blp--

Hitchens is topical and writes daily about current events, so. I enjoy his tone, but his arguments aren't always precise, and sometimes I think he misses the genuine critique of the thing.

I have to go try not to kill my cats.

[blp]

blp--

Hitchens is topical and writes daily about current events, so. I enjoy his tone, but his arguments aren't always precise, and sometimes I think he misses the genuine critique of the thing.

I have to go try not to kill my cats.

It's true he generally writes about current events, but the material he draws on in that book is mostly historical. The links Logos posted to explain why that thread got closed were all about the rules on religious threads and ad hominem attacks.

[Jozanny]

Well, I am an imperfect poster, and always lapse, with rare exception, into some version of my personal experience, but if I ran a site like this I would not have vacuous sub-forums which, by their very nature, lead to problems. I'd change Religous Texts into more specific sub-genres, and Philosophical Literature would become something like *Classical Philosophy* *Logic* *Metaphysics*, etc, and would expect discussion about specifics, and would place strict limits on arguments about personal belief.

It might be less popular that way, but the discussion would be more concrete, and maybe members would actually teach each other.

Ever the optimist. Off to lunch.

[blp]

It might be less popular that way,


Aye, there's the rub.

[kandaurov]

Thanks for having answered, blp. The reason you gave makes sense, but one would think this kind of religious freedom would cause the forum to be blocked as well. I was just wondering because I would love to have this sort of talk but about politics, but it's not that I'm willing to ignore forum rules, I guess if I want it so bad I ought to look for it somewhere else.

Indeed, Jozanny, that's just it, I don't see the point of discussing personal belief. A belief is something that you have, not something you should impose upon others. No one should aspire to brainwash you into believing in something else, so ultimately it's very fruitless to discuss religion in that sense.

Though I'm well aware that it's meant to be a joke, a thread with the title 'your faith is false' is allowed to go on. So why not say 'your political ideology is false'? It would be just as provocative and just as interesting for a debate of ideas, if not more.

I don't want to come across as authority-defiant. I just want to understand.

[blp]

Thanks for having answered, blp. The reason you gave makes sense, but one would think this kind of religious freedom would cause the forum to be blocked as well. I was just wondering because I would love to have this sort of talk but about politics, but it's not that I'm willing to ignore forum rules, I guess if I want it so bad I ought to look for it somewhere else.

Yeah. Plenty of newspaper sites where you can rattle on about political subjects. It does seem a little odd to talk about literature without politics, but needs must.



Indeed, Jozanny, that's just it, I don't see the point of discussing personal belief. A belief is something that you have, not something you should impose upon others. No one should aspire to brainwash you into believing in something else, so ultimately it's very fruitless to discuss religion in that sense.

In the words of an old cartoon, 'I washed my own brain last night and now I can't do a thing with it.'

In practice you seem to be right, but this subject, even more than politics, goes right to the heart of most people's sense of the world's ills and how to cure them. It's hard to let go. I find it hard to let go.

[Jozanny]

kandaurov:

I can sort of understand why Chris enforces the no politics rule, actually. Students are by nature young and impulsive, and I doubt there would be any real peace if they and nanny heads like myself got topical. The political sites I do visit are unpleasant at times, even TNR. They have some nasty stuff going on about a contemporary philosopher who I will not name in the context of this post. There is some decent discourse at the sites I visit which allow feedback, but it gets drowned out more than not, especially Politico. I am registered but rarely jump into that fray because the posters bash each other, the journalists, and would restart the civil war along ideological lines if they could--that said, the policies here on faith topics could still use rebooting, and no, I am not the smartest person in the room, and yes, I know it isn't easy, but in my family we do not discuss religion face to face and we are family, intimate, and all raised in Catholicism, and if we have that rectitude live, the virtual world might do well to remember something about the civility of saving your faith for your place of worship, or lack thereof.

There are things I do enjoy about LN, but PL and RT are, to put it nicely, problematic.

[bazarov]

Big bang is a big made up theory by mankind. It cannot be proved and all religious people believe that there was no such thing. The big bang provides mankind as a start of a setence to all beginning. They need a startingmark to define what comes when and what comes next.

(I am Theist)

So you have right to believe that God exist, and they don't have right to believe that Big bang happened? And both of you have no evidences? Interesting.

You should also have RESPECT for them.

P.S. Cool cartoon :D

[kandaurov]

Jozanny, I see what you mean. However I do think that it wouldn't be too bad among this community in specific. Well, true that maybe as soon as this had politics too people would come who could be a destabilising force... Hm. But far from me from contesting Chris's decision, I was just wondering. Still don't really understand why politics debates get uglier than religious ones, though. Will take a look at these political forums then. Thanks :)

[0=2]

Hahahahaha.

The point of this being, you think it matters that you can harness various results out of a planned process?

The viking dude is still going to split your head, and you're still going to end up dead, and whether or not you understand more about his chromosones than he means little to him, and even less to the axe...

and your bleeding half-head.

[Shield&Sword]

I feel stupid making a thread that was meant to be a joke.

Perhaps only i understood it. :)

[Redzeppelin]

You choose to ignore a slight detail, dear Redzeppelin, which makes all the difference: my ideas and beliefs do not subject anyone to a certain behaviour, do not establish absolute “truths” and subsequent moral regulations, and – more importantly – have not led to this tremendous suffering that human history has witnessed throughout the centuries.

Anyone in good faith knows what was (and still is) the role of religious faith on this matters. And anyone can then choose what is normal...

Who's subjected you to any behavior, by the way? Did skasian force you to do something you didn't like? You're not required to follow the morality of the Bible if you don't like it - God gave you free will - by all means, use it.

The so called "suffering" you refer to conveniently leaves out all the help, compassion, aid, and love that has also been given out by the Christian church - a rather one-sided presentation. Most persuasive speakers know that to paint your opponent in such broad strokes is hardly fair - and as such means that your argument will not be seen as credible. Fairness is one of the first criteria of credibility.

As well, the total number of deaths directly attributable to religious wars pales in number to the amount of people who have suffered and died under athiest regimes.

And, apparently, you see yourself as an arbiter of an "absolute truth" - since you seem to see yourself as possessing the credentials to diagnose people you don't even know as having mental/emotional problems. That's pretty assumptive, don't you think? You have no problem laying your own judgment on someone else - what gives you the moral high ground to do so?

[jon1jt]

You're not required to follow the morality of the Bible if you don't like it - God gave you free will - by all means, use it.


When are cockroaches going to crawl into the mouths of every Holy Bibler and rip out that utterance, God, from the base of human tongues, and replace it with something colorful, aromatic---like a liter of sweat, or llama poop? :sick:

[Redzeppelin]

When are cockroaches going to crawl into the mouths of every Holy Bibler and rip out that utterance, God, from the base of human tongues, and replace it with something colorful, aromatic---like a liter of sweat, or llama poop? :sick:

Well Hello jon - long time no hear, eh? Did you have a real argument to give, something thoughtful to add, or did you just wish to be insulting? Reminder: the ad hominem attack is usually a strong sign that one's opponent has no valid rebuttal and must resort to attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Your post, by the way, qualifies exactly as that.

[jon1jt]

Well Hello jon - long time no hear, eh? Did you have a real argument to give, something thoughtful to add, or just juvenile hatred to spout off?

Hey buddy. I do have the fear of Jesus in me, sometimes. I've had time to chew on the juvenile hatred I spouted off---and I've decided that I'm staying out of this one. :cold:

[andave_ya]

When are cockroaches going to crawl into the mouths of every Holy Bibler and rip out that utterance, God, from the base of human tongues, and replace it with something colorful, aromatic---like a liter of sweat, or llama poop? :sick:

What an ill-fated thread.

Frankly, I've no objection to the cartoon, having never believed in Odin in the first place, and also, having no fear of science disproving either the Bible or the nonexistence of God. However, "Your faith is false,"...thank you very much. I appreciate the kind words.

[jon1jt]

What an ill-fated thread.

Frankly, I've no objection to the cartoon, having never believed in Odin in the first place, and also, having no fear of science disproving either the Bible or the nonexistence of God. However, "Your faith is false,"...thank you very much. I appreciate the kind words.

I've repented. Shalom.

[andave_ya]

I've repented. Shalom.

:lol: you mean I don't have to chase you around town with a pitchfork in one hand and a Bible in the other?

[jon1jt]

:lol: you mean I don't have to chase you around town with a pitchfork in one hand and a Bible in the other?

No way I'm a good boy now. :D

[lupe]

Do you mean lupe that your beliefs, which dictate your practices don't subject others to form certain behaviours? Are you saying you don't shape and influence people? Most importantly, are you saying your practices, fueled by your beliefs (whatever they be) do not contribute toward the suffering of others?


Who's subjected you to any behavior, by the way? Did skasian force you to do something you didn't like? You're not required to follow the morality of the Bible if you don't like it - God gave you free will - by all means, use it.

The so called "suffering" you refer to conveniently leaves out all the help, compassion, aid, and love that has also been given out by the Christian church - a rather one-sided presentation. Most persuasive speakers know that to paint your opponent in such broad strokes is hardly fair - and as such means that your argument will not be seen as credible. Fairness is one of the first criteria of credibility.

As well, the total number of deaths directly attributable to religious wars pales in number to the amount of people who have suffered and died under athiest regimes.

And, apparently, you see yourself as an arbiter of an "absolute truth" - since you seem to see yourself as possessing the credentials to diagnose people you don't even know as having mental/emotional problems. That's pretty assumptive, don't you think? You have no problem laying your own judgment on someone else - what gives you the moral high ground to do so?

Well, since some prefer to divert the discussion into “personal” (I hope we agree that this discussion has nothing to do with the individuals behind Redzeppelin, Delta40, lupe, skasian etc and their own beliefs) let me make it clearer: Armed conflicts might be motivated by economic greed, by political ambition, by ethnic or racial prejudice, by deep grievance or revenge, or by patriotic belief in the destiny of a nation. But, since the beginning of times, the strongest motive that made people fight is an unshakeable faith that one’s religion is the only true one, reinforced by a holy book that explicitly condemns all heretics and followers of rival religions to death, and explicitly promises that the soldiers of God will go straight to a martyr’s heaven.

History has witnessed millions of dead, in all continents, in the name of God, the Bible or the Coran in one hand, the sword or the grenade in the other: the torture and the burnings of the Inquisition; the massacres, looting, rape and extermination of the Crusades; the humiliation, exploitation and slavery of the black people; the genocides and ethnocides of the Christian conquistadores; the cooperation with all the fascisms of the 20th century – Mussolini, Petain, Franco, Hitler, Pinochet, Salazar, the Greek colonels, the Latin-American dictators etc -. And if anyone needs more contemporary examples, the list is very long: former Yugoslavia, N. Ireland, Sudan, India, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Algeria, Indonesia, Tcechenia, Philippines, Lebanon, Cyprus, Palestine, S. Thailand, the numerous terrorist attacks from Islamic fundamentalists etc...

People can choose to ignore all this (with the usual absurdity ”it’s not the religion, it’s how people use religion”!!!!), but they then should not expect to be taken very seriously. On the contrary, Redzeppelin, no war has been fought in the name of atheism or agnosticism. And if, by chance, you refer to the horrible crimes of the regimes under Hitler (who was a theist) or Stalin (who was an atheist), then you probably confuse the well-known motivations of their acts and their personal stance towards established religions (obviously Hitler did not do what he did because he was a theist, nor Stalin because he was an atheist).

So, yes, Delta40, my metaphysical concerns, my ideas in spirituality or my opinions on morality and ethics have not resulted / do not result on the suffering of the others. That’s simply because they don’t refer to any Absolute Truth or even to any “faith”. After all, who will ever fight or give his life for the sake of an absence of belief?

[billyjack]

Well, since some prefer to divert the discussion into “personal” (I hope we agree that this discussion has nothing to do with the individuals behind Redzeppelin, Delta40, lupe, skasian etc and their own beliefs) let me make it clearer: Armed conflicts might be motivated by economic greed, by political ambition, by ethnic or racial prejudice, by deep grievance or revenge, or by patriotic belief in the destiny of a nation. But, since the beginning of times, the strongest motive that made people fight is an unshakeable faith that one’s religion is the only true one, reinforced by a holy book that explicitly condemns all heretics and followers of rival religions to death, and explicitly promises that the soldiers of God will go straight to a martyr’s heaven.

History has witnessed millions of dead, in all continents, in the name of God, the Bible or the Coran in one hand, the sword or the grenade in the other: the torture and the burnings of the Inquisition; the massacres, looting, rape and extermination of the Crusades; the humiliation, exploitation and slavery of the black people; the genocides and ethnocides of the Christian conquistadores; the cooperation with all the fascisms of the 20th century – Mussolini, Petain, Franco, Hitler, Pinochet, Salazar, the Greek colonels, the Latin-American dictators etc -. And if anyone needs more contemporary examples, the list is very long: former Yugoslavia, N. Ireland, Sudan, India, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Algeria, Indonesia, Tcechenia, Philippines, Lebanon, Cyprus, Palestine, S. Thailand, the numerous terrorist attacks from Islamic fundamentalists etc...

People can choose to ignore all this (with the usual absurdity ”it’s not the religion, it’s how people use religion”!!!!), but they then should not expect to be taken very seriously. On the contrary, Redzeppelin, no war has been fought in the name of atheism or agnosticism. And if, by chance, you refer to the horrible crimes of the regimes under Hitler (who was a theist) or Stalin (who was an atheist), then you probably confuse the well-known motivations of their acts and their personal stance towards established religions (obviously Hitler did not do what he did because he was a theist, nor Stalin because he was an atheist).

So, yes, Delta40, my metaphysical concerns, my ideas in spirituality or my opinions on morality and ethics have not resulted / do not result on the suffering of the others. That’s simply because they don’t refer to any Absolute Truth or even to any “faith”. After all, who will ever fight or give his life for the sake of an absence of belief?

:thumbs_up

[Redzeppelin]

Well, since some prefer to divert the discussion into “personal” (I hope we agree that this discussion has nothing to do with the individuals behind Redzeppelin, Delta40, lupe, skasian etc and their own beliefs) let me make it clearer: Armed conflicts might be motivated by economic greed, by political ambition, by ethnic or racial prejudice, by deep grievance or revenge, or by patriotic belief in the destiny of a nation. But, since the beginning of times, the strongest motive that made people fight is an unshakeable faith that one’s religion is the only true one, reinforced by a holy book that explicitly condemns all heretics and followers of rival religions to death, and explicitly promises that the soldiers of God will go straight to a martyr’s heaven.

You got some sort of back-up for that claim? Most wars are about real estate. Not every war termed a "religious war" actually had religion as its core. What you've done is essentially laid out a massive, sweeping generalization.


History has witnessed millions of dead, in all continents, in the name of God, the Bible or the Coran in one hand, the sword or the grenade in the other: the torture and the burnings of the Inquisition; the massacres, looting, rape and extermination of the Crusades; the humiliation, exploitation and slavery of the black people; the genocides and ethnocides of the Christian conquistadores; the cooperation with all the fascisms of the 20th century – Mussolini, Petain, Franco, Hitler, Pinochet, Salazar, the Greek colonels, the Latin-American dictators etc -. And if anyone needs more contemporary examples, the list is very long: former Yugoslavia, N. Ireland, Sudan, India, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Algeria, Indonesia, Tcechenia, Philippines, Lebanon, Cyprus, Palestine, S. Thailand, the numerous terrorist attacks from Islamic fundamentalists etc...

I'm not sure those who have died due to religion are in the "millions" - that strikes me as hyperbole. Hitler - by the way - cannot be called a Christian by any stretch of the imagination. If you add up the deaths due to him, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot - all in the name of religion-free utopias - that numbers equal about 118,000,000. Find a century with that many casualties due to religion - and again, these were from leaders who were hostile to religion.


People can choose to ignore all this (with the usual absurdity ”it’s not the religion, it’s how people use religion”!!!!), but they then should not expect to be taken very seriously.

Why not? The answer is not completely invalid simply because you don't buy it.


On the contrary, Redzeppelin, no war has been fought in the name of atheism or agnosticism. And if, by chance, you refer to the horrible crimes of the regimes under Hitler (who was a theist) or Stalin (who was an atheist), then you probably confuse the well-known motivations of their acts and their personal stance towards established religions (obviously Hitler did not do what he did because he was a theist, nor Stalin because he was an atheist).

A war hasn't been fought on atheism's behalf, but atheistic leaders have been behind the worst slaughters in history. You'll need more than generalizations to create a convincing argument.

Religion has been behind some big historical "black eyes" - but atheism's denial of the dignity of the human as a creation of God points directly towards the horrors of totalitarianism.

[weltanschauung]

do you study religion? Dont you know that religion in fact is an invention of mankind to explain only some of the matter in the world? Dont you know that religion is always uncertain and there are so many limitations on it? Dont you know that religion's theories are never facts as one piece of evidence can crumble them into pieces? Does religion explain the nature of emotion such love and hatred and why some of these causes certain chemicals to be produced in the body? Why do you think that there are millions of religion fanatics in the world that are scratching their heads for a cure for tumors and aids? Why do you think theologists are continuous finding out "mysterious" theories that the earth is actually younger than they thought? Why do you think that religion is so unsatiable when it comes down to explaining the meaning of life? And how can you be so sure that some scientific theories are false when infact you never experienced an actual experience that cannot be explained by religion?

Forgive me if i have been a little bit hypocritical, but im always in the religious forum advocating pathetically that peoples skepticism are false when in fact i dont know anything about life either. Go back to primary school and learn something called submission.


fixed.

[jorgis]

how about my faith in atheism? thats not false. i do believe i dont believe!

[lupe]

You got some sort of back-up for that claim? Most wars are about real estate. Not every war termed a "religious war" actually had religion as its core. What you've done is essentially laid out a massive, sweeping generalization.



I'm not sure those who have died due to religion are in the "millions" - that strikes me as hyperbole. Hitler - by the way - cannot be called a Christian by any stretch of the imagination. If you add up the deaths due to him, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot - all in the name of religion-free utopias - that numbers equal about 118,000,000. Find a century with that many casualties due to religion - and again, these were from leaders who were hostile to religion.



Why not? The answer is not completely invalid simply because you don't buy it.



A war hasn't been fought on atheism's behalf, but atheistic leaders have been behind the worst slaughters in history. You'll need more than generalizations to create a convincing argument.

Religion has been behind some big historical "black eyes" - but atheism's denial of the dignity of the human as a creation of God points directly towards the horrors of totalitarianism.

Obviously, I’m not here to convince you (or anybody else for that matter) on the correctness of my views. However, as far as historical data is concerned, you may ignore my claims and find easily the required information by yourself. There are, for example, several sources on the death toll of religious wars, and an abundant bibliography on Hitler’s theism – no need for any imagination here.

Your argument on the hypothetical relation between the (very real) suffering caused by Stalin, Mao, Pol Polt etc and their atheism is more that absurd. If all these followers of Marxist utopia were left-handed, would-you blame this for their acts? Hitler and Stalin had both moustaches; does this prove anything on the link between totalitarianism and moustaches? As you said, a war hasn't been fought on atheism's behalf – this should be enough to tell you why it’s actually in defence of human dignity.

[zado_k]

Do you study science? Dont you know that science in fact is an invention of mankind to explain only some of the matter in the world?

I'm a little puzzled by this. How should anyone know that? Science is two things

a body of method for acquiring knowledge about the world (qualified in various ways)
the aggregate practice of scientists


In both senses science is incomplete and tentative as best we know. Almost everyone involved believes that there are some questions beyond the realm of the scientific method - morality and aesthetics for example. The question of god's existence is within the realm of science only to the extent that some people claim that there is scientific warrant for asserting that god exists. The vast majority of scientists say there is no such warrant. If people believe in god it is not properly for scientific reasons.


Dont you know that science is always uncertain and there are so many limitations on it? Dont you know that science's theories are never facts

No theories are facts. Facts and theories are just different things. Theories are explanations (usually involving chains of causal reasoning) and facts are true propositions - they are the states of affairs that are named by true sentences. Mixing these two up is to misunderstand science.


as one piece of evidence can crumble them into pieces?

This is very much to the point since as far as most theistic accounts go, no fact can disprove the existence of god. The existence of god is for the very reason you state not a scientific proposition. (The non-existence of god is however a scientific theoretical position which is a different matter - it is quite proper for science to say that the rational account of the world of matter involves no god).


Does science explain the nature of emotion such love and hatred and why some of these causes certain chemicals to be produced in the body?

Not so far and maybe not ever. Science happens in history and is incremental: somethings we don't know today but will tomorrow and we don't know if we will ever know or explain everything. None of this has any bearing on the god question.


Why do you think that there are millions of scientists in the world that are scratching their heads for a cure for tumors and AIDs?

Scientists don't usually scratch their heads to find things out but the reason that they puzzle over these questions is to make progress towards an answer. The history of scientific progress indicates that they are reasonably good at it and we may be optimistic about future progress.


Why do you think researchers are continuous finding out "mysterious" theories that the earth is actually younger than they thought?

I have never heard of any scientific researcher finding out any such theories. The only proponents of "young earth" ideas are religious believers.


Why do you think that science is so unsatiable when it comes down to explaining the meaning of life?

Science has nothing to say about the meaning of life as such. It has no more to say about it than cheesemaking has to say about the axiom of choice in mathematics. The question of human values is outside of scientific discourse. (But not of rational discourse - scientists who are atheists can have values).


And how can you be so sure that some faiths are false when infact you never experienced an spiritual experience that cannot be explained by science?

The question is whether or not any of these experiences should be counted as rendering god's existence a scientific fact (or even hypothesis). I haven't had lots of experiences - among them no spiritual experience that cannot (as opposed to has not) been explained by science. So far this has had no bearing on my convinction that there is no reason to believe in god.


Forgive me if I have been a little bit direct, but never ever in the religious forum advocate pathetically that peoples faith are false when in fact you dont know anything about them. Go back to primary school and learn something called RESPECT.

I don't know about the original poster's state of religious education but I know at least something about religious ideas. And knowing what I know I am convinced that there is no scientific warrant for the proposition that god exists - in that sense religious belief is false if believers claim that their faith is on a par with propositions of science such as "the sun rises in the east" or "matter is composed of atoms".

There is nothing I can do to counter someones non-rational assertion that god exists - except to point out that it isn't rationally warranted. I don't know why this should offend religious believers unless they wish to claim (as very many have done - Christian apologetics offering myriad examples) that their faith is akin to scientific fact. It isn't.

Peace and loving kindness.

[datulakan]

perhaps he was just making a statement to debate??

Of course he did, and the whole community benefited from it.

[blazeofglory]

Science is a different thing and faith has little to do with science.

[Mathor]

people are taking this out of context. Skasian was offended by the use of the term "your faith is false", she never made any claims of any sort that religion was true or that she believe religion to be true etc etc so I don't get why everyone is attacking her for it.

i am an atheist, i think the majority of people's faiths are not true, but I am not so arrogant that I try to shove my views in everyone's faces. and that's the problem with this thread.

[Judas130]

yeah but..Odin is cool.

:p

[blazeofglory]

Do you study science? Dont you know that science in fact is an invention of mankind to explain only some of the matter in the world? Dont you know that science is always uncertain and there are so many limitations on it? Dont you know that science's theories are never facts as one piece of evidence can crumble them into pieces? Does science explain the nature of emotion such love and hatred and why some of these causes certain chemicals to be produced in the body? Why do you think that there are millions of scientists in the world that are scratching their heads for a cure for tumors and AIDs? Why do you think researchers are continuous finding out "mysterious" theories that the earth is actually younger than they thought? Why do you think that science is so unsatiable when it comes down to explaining the meaning of life? And how can you be so sure that some faiths are false when infact you never experienced an spiritual experience that cannot be explained by science?

Forgive me if I have been a little bit direct, but never ever in the religious forum advocate pathetically that peoples faith are false when in fact you dont know anything about them. Go back to primary school and learn something called RESPECT.

If you say science is the invention of man, so is all ideas about the universe, religious or irreligious all originate from man alone.

[Delta40]

It seems to me the age of enlightenment (science and rationality) has led us into the age of terror. It is difficult for me to continually place my faith and trust in reason alone. It knows not where it takes us.

[cfh]

in science the proof is in the mathematical certainty to which we must all use accepted valuation of even the most simple facts, even the most celebrated mathematical discoveries have elements that do not make absolute claims. theories are simply ideas of possibilities that can be tested and quantified with previously accepted theories. the truth of mathematics is possibly the most definitive and yet obscure. we are wired to have faith.

[Stanislaw]

Science is a different thing and faith has little to do with science.

Faith has a great deal to do with science as well, after all theory is only theory, regardless of the probability.


people are taking this out of context. Skasian was offended by the use of the term "your faith is false", she never made any claims of any sort that religion was true or that she believe religion to be true etc etc so I don't get why everyone is attacking her for it.

i am an atheist, i think the majority of people's faiths are not true, but I am not so arrogant that I try to shove my views in everyone's faces. and that's the problem with this thread.

I agree with you fully, no need to attack other people.


yeah but..Odin is cool.

:p

ODIN is second to none :crash:

[blazeofglory]

Of course some theories bear resemblance to faith but not all.

[Lynne Fees]

Let's not fight, okay? But I would like everyone to think about this: Science has shown that species evolve. Butterflies get better wings; flies get bigger eyes, etc. over time.

The Bible says, in Genesis 1:21: "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Is it possible that "according to their kinds" means that the "kinds" don't change; hence, the ever-popular "missing link"?

[billyjack]

yeah, that's probably what the bible meant. if it had been written after the theorization (not a word but it should be) of evolution i'd be willing to bet that the bible's terminology would coincide more with darwins theory.

[weltanschauung]

the religious texts forum is like... http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/sm/doh.gif

[jakobmuller]

Where is the comic

Is there anyway someone could post a link or something please, because that thing is great.

[Rorshach69]

Why do you think that there are millions of scientists in the world that are scratching their heads for a cure for tumors and AIDs?

Well think about, AIDS is a relatively young virus. Just look what Science, not the Bible has cured, Black Plague, Small Pox, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Malaria, the list is pretty long. So don't sit around complaining because scientists are trying help people when your "God" lets innocent people suffer.


fixed.
Genius

[byquist]

Amusing cartoon there!! I think Ben Stein (ala the movie "Expelled" -- some on Youtube) would like it!!

[Lynne Fees]

yeah, that's probably what the bible meant. if it had been written after the theorization (not a word but it should be) of evolution i'd be willing to bet that the bible's terminology would coincide more with darwins theory.

I doubt if God would have changed one word just to make Darwin happy!

[grotto]

I doubt if God would have changed one word just to make Darwin happy!

Let's not fight, ok?:p I see you have some doubt, maybe you could ask him then. Maybe the person who originally wrote it misheard the word. Could have happened you know!;)

[Lynne Fees]

Let's not fight, ok?:p I see you have some doubt, maybe you could ask him then. Maybe the person who originally wrote it misheard the word. Could have happened you know!;)

A person can definitely "mishear." But the Bible, written by more than 40 authors over thousands of years, has no contradictions. A miracle in itself. The books in it were chosen based on their credibility at the Council of Trent in 1556. Or it's just a good book, if that's your pleasure, and necessary to study so you can understand Shakespeare and some of the classic authoris better. At any rate, I hope everyone reading this will read that "good book!"


Well think about, AIDS is a relatively young virus. Just look what Science, not the Bible has cured, Black Plague, Small Pox, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Malaria, the list is pretty long. So don't sit around complaining because scientists are trying help people when your "God" lets innocent people suffer.

God created a wonderful world. Disease and death enter when people choose to put themselves above God (=sin). God does not intervene to make sure what we think is "good" happens on a regular basis. Otherwise, you could have no reliable laws of physics. Scientists couldn't figure out anything. When God does intervene, we call it a "supernatural" miracle, but, by definition, that can't be the normal course of events.

[lichtrausch]

God created a wonderful world. Disease and death enter when people choose to put themselves above God (=sin). God does not intervene to make sure what we think is "good" happens on a regular basis. Otherwise, you could have no reliable laws of physics. Scientists couldn't figure out anything. When God does intervene, we call it a "supernatural" miracle, but, by definition, that can't be the normal course of events.

Long before humans walked the Earth, members of other species were experiencing death. If as you say people brought sin and death, how do you explain that?

[tailor STATELY]

Interesting thread, ad hominem attacks aside. I love cartoons.

When it comes to the wisdom of man I always have this imagery of an old "The Far Side"/Larson cartoon I clipped out years ago where God and the current Jeopardy-like champion are playing a trivia game; where the score is God: 1065 (after scoring 50 points correctly for His last answer) and the champion (representing intelligent man): 0

The passages below in the New Testament of The Bible by the Apostle Paul to Timothy always brings a smile to my countenance:

1 Timothy 20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

I believe that the proving of God by man is infinitely less important than God proving men.

A quote by Albert Einstein: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Speaking of the Spirit: May those who have eyes see; and those who have ears listen.

:tailor STATELY

[JBI]

Yay for taking Einstein out of context! Superior spirit doesn't mean Jesus Christ, hate to break it to you, it means superior spirit, in the sense of the spirit of mystery and wonder to be found within the universe, as the more we uncover, the more we find there is to be uncovered.

As Laozi put it, The Tao which we are able to speak is not the mysterious Tao, the name which we are able to name is not the mysterious name.

Without name is the principle of the sky and of the earth, naming is the mother of all the 10,000 particular things.

(translation mine from my memory of it in Italian).


The complexity of the world doesn't connote a God, or a reliance on religion - what Einstein was merely saying was that he has a humble admiration for the complexity and fastness of the universe, which even he, with all his science could not even begin to fathom.

[lichtrausch]

Speaking of the Spirit: May those who have eyes see; and those who have ears listen.


That's funny. With the numbers of Atheists continuing to increase you'd think more people were being born without eyes and ears. Or maybe you're just stating a metaphor which I can't understand because I have no brain. Life is pretty tough when you're missing so many body parts.

[backline]

If you say science is the invention of man, so is all ideas about the universe, religious or irreligious all originate from man alone.


There it is!

No matter what a person's personal belief system (or world view) is, it is born of thoughts. Consciousness is always growing from perceptions, like science.
Fundamentalism can be a temporary stopover for many, but like a seed breaking through concrete, thought continues to sift through incoming data.

Some limit therefore, being exposed to incoming data. Personally I think that's sad, especially when it has potential for having an impact on others, but political power has a way of changing its sources of information, over time. Depending on geographical location, this change may be swift or slow.

The debate about the chicken or the egg goes on.

When I was in a fundamentalist era personally, I was pretty sure the chicken came first.

[JBI]

That's funny. With the numbers of Atheists continuing to increase you'd think more people were being born without eyes and ears. Or maybe you're just stating a metaphor which I can't understand because I have no brain. Life is pretty tough when you're missing so many body parts.

I'd disagree. I don't think the number of atheists is really increasing, I think the number of new-age idiots calling themselves atheists is rising. Seriously, I much prefer a classical Christian to the new arrogant, "I'm an atheist" morons who sport their Dawkins and think they are somehow cool. But at any rate, the number of fundamental religious people is rising as well (and it seems, like atheists, they just can't keep their stuff to themselves, and insist on knocking on people's door - regardless of time, city, country, or even language).

[lichtrausch]

I'd disagree. I don't think the number of atheists is really increasing, I think the number of new-age idiots calling themselves atheists is rising. Seriously, I much prefer a classical Christian to the new arrogant, "I'm an atheist" morons who sport their Dawkins and think they are somehow cool. But at any rate, the number of fundamental religious people is rising as well (and it seems, like atheists, they just can't keep their stuff to themselves, and insist on knocking on people's door - regardless of time, city, country, or even language).

Putting the rise in Atheism down to a marginal group of Dawkins fanboys is both unfair and doesn't recognize the strong appeal of Atheism for large groups of the population. Sweden now consists of 80% atheists. You don't think that most Swedes are "the new arrogant, "I'm an atheist" morons who sport their Dawkins and think they are somehow cool", do you?

[tailor STATELY]

Yay for taking Einstein out of context! Superior spirit doesn't mean Jesus Christ, hate to break it to you, it means superior spirit, in the sense of the spirit of mystery and wonder to be found within the universe, as the more we uncover, the more we find there is to be uncovered.


LOL Some kind of a 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' thing going on there? Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers... Where in my post did I even intimate Einstein was referring to Christ ? Although I may be a staunch Christian I do not presume for others, but offer my respect to all of faith or non-faith.

I merely remembered a quote a great scientist once gave in regard to his spiritual self that was topical to what I believed the original premise of this thread was... That science is in total opposition to faith... I do not believe it is, nor do I believe Einstein thought so.


by lichtrausch: That's funny. With the numbers of Atheists continuing to increase you'd think more people were being born without eyes and ears. Or maybe you're just stating a metaphor which I can't understand because I have no brain. Life is pretty tough when you're missing so many body parts.


I love your sense of humor lichtrausch, I too tend to self deprecate. My poor understanding of German interprets 'lichtrausch' as 'intoxicated by the light' or 'lightly intoxicated' ? If the former, perhaps that would be a metaphor for searching for the truth, or the latter hiding from it ?

Anyway... Yes "May those who have eyes see; and those who have ears listen" is likened to a metaphor liberally sprinkled in the Bible and used by Christ Himself. I believe it to mean that one must put on their spiritual eyes and ears to listen, see, and understand that of the Spirit.

God (other, or no one if you prefer) bless,

:tailor STATELY

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Further personal comments will lead to thread closure.

[Saladin]

Einstein himself said he believed in Spinoza`s "God".

[lichtrausch]

I love your sense of humor lichtrausch, I too tend to self deprecate. My poor understanding of German interprets 'lichtrausch' as 'intoxicated by the light' or 'lightly intoxicated' ? If the former, perhaps that would be a metaphor for searching for the truth, or the latter hiding from it ?


A lichtrausch is a flush of light. And I'm definitely searching for the truth. :santasmil

Did you learn German in school?

[Lynne Fees]

Long before humans walked the Earth, members of other species were experiencing death. If as you say people brought sin and death, how do you explain that?

Taking Darwinism as a given, your statement about dying species is true. Taking creation as a given, it may not be true.

[lichtrausch]

Taking Darwinism as a given, your statement about dying species is true. Taking creation as a given, it may not be true.

I see we haven't gotten past step 1...

[Bark]

There is ere uncertainty. Faith looks to the unknown through the heart's eye. Science the mind's. But human have the ability to see both ways. One is not real and the other false. It is like viewing an event through liberal eyes, or conservative eyes. There are divers ways to see a thing like the unknown. What can we quantify versus what can we logically deduce.


Well think about, AIDS is a relatively young virus. Just look what Science, not the Bible has cured, Black Plague, Small Pox, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Malaria, the list is pretty long. So don't sit around complaining because scientists are trying help people when your "God" lets innocent people suffer.




Genius

God's book the Qur'an has prosciptions on hygene that were gleaned through science and inserted into religion. Wadu is the best way to stop the spread of things like the swine flu.