Religious views in today's world

[Someguy]

In todays world, many religions exist. But when their belief systems get into politics, MAJOR problems occur. I think personally that this problem is a major speed bump in the progression to peace. I do not think that we should destroy religion, nor do I think that there should be one unified religion. In fact, the multiple looks on the universe are rather nice. On the other hand, I do not think that religion should be involved in politics.
Free will is a part of the human existence, and should not be snuffed out, and should not be controlled, but instead should be let loose to roam free, WITHIN REASON.
Religion is the cause of some wars, because some take it out of hand.
Religions should be a GUIDELINE to live by, not a law that forces people to do and/or believe EVERYTHING within it.
What I am getting at is this:
What do you think about religion?

As a bonus question, and you may or may not answer this, it is up to you, why not tell us your religion?
I myself have a religion I am proud to be a part of, even though it is looked down upon in basically all society. It is Satanism. I do NOT hate Christianity, nor do I have any problem dealing with those within it's belief system. Most of my friends are Christian in fact. So do not look down upon me for what I am...and DO NOT judge me for what I believe. I want a peaceful discussion within this topic. No flaming or putting down of other religions/beliefs...PLEASE!

[Feball3001]

Many religions exist because different people have different interpertations of the same thing.Religion is the cause of some wars, because some take it out of hand.
Religion has cause many wars and I am sure that there will be many wars still to come over disputes over certain aspects of region.Religions should be a GUIDELINE to live by, not a law that forces people to do and/or believe EVERYTHING within it.
In the Old Testament of Exodus we where give the laws to live by in following God, when Jesus died on the cross for everyone the old laws where no longer the laws that we had to live by and did become guidlines.



What do you think about religion?
I think that there are a lot of extremest when it comes to religion which puts people off of religion all together, other religions that pose as relgions that are actually cults.As a bonus question, and you may or may not answer this, it is up to you, why not tell us your religion?
I am a christian which you could proberly already know since you have read some of my other posts on other topics. The denomination that I am is Baptist but when I am at home I go to a The Church of Christ church.

[agrajagthetesty]

I think that although everyone claims not to want religion to become the law, there are many groups striving to achieve just that. For example, the website that aims to introduce laws punishing disrespect for your parents (amongst other things) with the death penalty, because of what it says in the Bible. Apparently Jesus urging his disciples to abandon their families was different. I also think that the line between strong, genuine belief and extremism is a lot more pliable than people think.

Surprising no-one, I will say that I have no religion. I'm an ex-Christian, turned atheist in my early teens.

[Someguy]

I think that there are a lot of extremest when it comes to religion which puts people off of religion all together, other religions that pose as relgions that are actually cults.
You do know that if a belief has more than 1 million followers, it is considered a fully established religion, right? And I hope that you know that a cult is an inside organization that is a break-off of another religion, and most religions, including Christianity, started as a cult of sorts.

[atemssoulmate]

What do you think about religion?
I think religion is an outward and organised expression of a necessary spiritual development stage that all people are challenged with. The security and sureness is something we humans need in a certain phase of our spiritual development, just like we need the physical security of our parents when we're young. The challenge is to not see it as the climax of development, rather as a stage, with other stages after it.why not tell us your religion?
I was raised outside of any organised religion, I adopted Christianity, specifically two different churches at two periods of my life, and have since developed / evolved past both. So I guess I am a post-Christian spiritual person. I don't really have a "tag" for it.

[agrajagthetesty]

I think religion is an outward and organised expression of a necessary spiritual development stage that all people are challenged with.
Ok seriously, this is getting weird. I like to write in my spare time, and I once wrote a short story expressing exactly this opinion. Well, I described it in terms of human arrogance, but it's basically the same thing.

[atemssoulmate]

...and you thought you entering the forums......little did you know....you were entering ..... THE TWILIGHT ZONE...do do do do .. do do do do .. do do do do ..

[lukeh]

Wait...What are the satanist beleifs? Well anyways, I am answering the bonus. I am a protestant christian and I am proud of it. Nobody will change that.

I can already taste the flaming in this thread.

[darkarcher]

I can already taste the flaming in this thread.
Really? I haven't seen any just yet.

Anyway, it is often said that religion shouldn't get into politics. This is true to an extent. However, the thing to realize is that there are people in politics...and they all want their own views to be dominant in society. It's hard to just say that religion cannot be brought into politics, because that would, for many people, remove their opinions completely from the political system.

[agrajagthetesty]

It's hard to just say that religion cannot be brought into politics, because that would, for many people, remove their opinions completely from the political system.
This point seems a little odd to me, because, of course, it's possible for people to have opinions that aren't based on religion. When people say religion shouldn't be brought into politics, usually what they mean is that politics should not be dominated by a particular religion. That leads inevitably to prejudice. A person's religion shapes their thinking, so to a certain extent it is impossible to remove religion from politics. However, I personally feel that when a politician defends their actions by talking about their religious beliefs or "God's will", that is going too far.

[darkarcher]

A person's religion shapes their thinking, so to a certain extent it is impossible to remove religion from politics.
That was the point I was making, thanks.

[Someguy]

Satanist beliefs? Look them up yourself! I really hate explaining it, because as you can imagine, I get asked to explain them a lot. So if you don't mind, just look them up yourself....

[lukeh]

I don't want keywords like 'Satan' or 'Satanic Cult and religions' in my history....

[Underling]

desu

[killshot]

Satanism was once described to me as a "transitional religion." It is essentially an atheistic religion with a small amount of spirituality involved. I like to think of it as a step between atheism and other religions such as christianity. However, as Underling said, Satanism can mean any number of things. What I said may or may not apply to the topic creator.

In case anyone didn't already know, I am an atheist.

[Sophie]

lukeh
#13
I'm a Satanist. A philosophical one. There are indeed a few variations of Satanism, so don't get confused. Some are incredibly atheistic in their views about deities, and others center around the worship of a deity. I think it's pretty ignorant of you to assume it's a cult. And you drive your ignorance even further by refusing to learn about it. That's sad.
Philosophical Satanism is about the indulgence of sin and living your short life to the fullest. Nope, sorry to disappoint but I don't drink blood or sacrifice virgins.

[TheFall]

Religion is a great little thing for society. Every religion humorously has another religion that totally destroys each other. For instance, some give morals, while others take them away. Some destroy peace while others hold peace above all else. In my opinion religion is the only thing keeping the world from going immortal and going into supreme chaos. Sure there extremists in just about every religion, but those are minorities.

I am a Communist Christian. Doesn't sound right, huh? Not in my opinion. I think that the best form of government is a fusion of church and state under Communism, ruled as a theocracy. I'm a Calvinist officially, but I founded an unofficial denomination based upon all of my beliefs put together called Aparadisianism. I am therefore an Aparadisianist.

[MrsSallyBakura]

That's an incredibly ideal viewpoint you have. While it would be perfect if people were completely willing to follow it, the thing is that many would reject that sort of government. That's just not the way society works.
It's a nice thought, really, but it's based upon your own ideals that simply clash with others'.

I am Roman Catholic. I believe in transubstantiation. I believe in purgatory. I don't believe anyone is in Hell except maybe those who outright say, "I want to go to Hell, I want nothing to do with Heaven." I believe creationism and evolutionism can coexist. I also believe in ecumenism and uniting Christians instead of making more and more and more denominations.

[TheFall]

Yes, more and more denominations aren't helping, just making more viewpoints as more and more people argue they're right about things that barely give a clue in the Bible. And you're right about the objection of that kind of government. That's just how we are, and society is...well bad in my opinion. If people just all thought alike, we wouldn't have pointless deaths or anything like that.

TO add to my beliefs, I don't believe that any human will enter heaven. Now don't go shouting off at me because that destroys any point in Jesus. No, it's just that I believe in a state of sleep for Christians, a state of persecution for nonbeliever's in God's prison complex, Hell, until judgment where Christians will go to the New Earth while the goats go to the Lake of FIre or whatever you want it called.

[darkarcher]

If people just all thought alike, we wouldn't have pointless deaths or anything like that.
If everyone thought alike, there'd be no point in religions in the first place. We'd all be right or wrong regardless.

[killshot]

If people just all thought alike...
What you are describing would be my personal hell. I will never understand the mind of a communist.

[Someguy]

Finally! Some one that KNOWS about religion!!!! THANK YOU!!!
I myself on the other hand AM a worshiper of Satan and sin and wish to live life to the fullest with nothing holding me back. Have fun while you can I always say!

[agrajagthetesty]

In my opinion religion is the only thing keeping the world from going immortal and going into supreme chaos.
I'll assume you meant to say "immoral" and not "immortal"...

It's interesting that you hold this view when religion has been the cause of so many wars and so much death. How many wars have been held in the name of science or atheism?

[TheFall]

Most communist take-overs come in atheism by the way; oh, and thanks, I meant immoral. And I realize there would be no point in religions, just one, the one that would be the right one.

Religion has started a lot of wars because of the way its interpreted and handled. Ever wonder if the wars and deaths were a GOOD thing to do? I mean even though the the Civil War wasn't on religious grounds, was it a good thing that all those died to set Federal rights first and establish black rights?

[agrajagthetesty]

Most communist take-overs come in atheism by the way
Which is precisely why I raised an eyebrow at the phrase "Communist Christian".I realize there would be no point in religions, just one, the one that would be the right one.
The problem here is that every religion believes itself to be the "right one".Religion has started a lot of wars because of the way its interpreted and handled.
Granted. Despite all the calls to war in the Bible, I don't think that your average Christian feels the need to get up in arms and defend their religion come what may. (Exceptions exist, but then they always do.)Ever wonder if the wars and deaths were a GOOD thing to do?
No. But then I view war as the ultimate last resort and by no means the correct way to solve a dispute unless all other methods have failed. I've never studied the Civil War, so my knowledge of it is very basic, but seeing as it wasn't a religious war the point seems somewhat irrelevant anyway. I am aware that wars can occasionally have a positive effect on the world- but the cost is enormous.

[killshot]

mean even though the the Civil War wasn't on religious grounds, was it a good thing that all those died to set Federal rights first and establish black rights?
Don't pretend for even a minute that the Civil War was fought to protect the rights of anyone, let alone black slaves. The emancipation of the slaves was done out of spite for the south and not out of any altruism from the northerners. The Civil War was a pointless bloodbath and any good that came of it was pure coincidence.

What good do you propose would come of a religious war? The Civil War proved that families could be torn apart by something as simple as an imaginary property line. Can you imagine what would happen if people went to war over their core beliefs?

[MrsSallyBakura]

*sigh* I think another Christian needs to step in the house.

Wars over religious reasons are just plain stupid and contradict the beliefs of said religion, most likely. I am pro-military and believe in defending ourselves, but to fight a war over religious beliefs is sinking too low. People aren't going to convert to Christianity over something the devil invented.

[darkarcher]

I agree completely. There's not much I can add to that without someone else bringing up new questions.

[Someguy]

What does being Christian have to do with how well they'll do in office? It doesn't matter what religion they have!

[killshot]

If I may get slightly off subject for a moment, I have a question regarding this statement:...over something the devil invented.
If God created the devil and God knows the outcome of events before they happen, then isn't God ultimately responsible for anything that the devil does? Why would an all loving god create a being with no other purpose than to bring evil to the world?

[Someguy]

If God created the devil and God knows the outcome of events before they happen, then isn't God ultimately responsible for anything that the devil does? Why would an all loving god create a being with no other purpose than to bring evil to the world?
Because he is obviously not all knowing.

Also, I ask again, WHAT does being Christian have to do with how well they'll do in office? It doesn't matter what religion they have!

[killshot]

Also, I ask again, WHAT does being Christian have to do with how well they'll do in office? It doesn't matter what religion they have!
I don't think anyone in the topic was implying that a christian president would perform better than a president with a different religion. Is your statement in response to something, or is this a new subject? I agree that religion has no relevance in politics, however I am confused as to how your question came up in the first place.

[Henriksson]

I think religion should be removed completely from the public sphere. We do not only need freedom of religion, we also need freedom FROM religion. Secularism is the future.

[agrajagthetesty]

We do not only need freedom of religion, we also need freedom FROM religion.
I am in love with this phrase. I want to marry it. Or maybe just borrow it for a while. Yeah, that'll do.

[darkarcher]

I think religion should be removed completely from the public sphere.
Undermining 1st Amendment rights? All of us have the right to believe what we want, true. However, we also have the right to state what we believe in a public forum and share that information with others.We do not only need freedom of religion, we also need freedom FROM religion.
An interesting point. Please explain exactly what you mean by this, because I definitely don't want to misinterpret what you're trying to say.

[Henriksson]

An interesting point. Please explain exactly what you mean by this, because I definitely don't want to misinterpret what you're trying to say.
I mean that religion should be something completely private. Churches and the like shouldn't be allowed, because frankly, you really don't need a building to express your spiritual desires. Or something. We should have the strictly secularistic point of view in everything we make as citizens, by default, by using what we actually KNOW. If you believe in "God" that's fine for me (well actually it isn't, but still), but DEMANDING things from others because of it, that's a no-no.

On a similar vein, if you want to ask the pope about his stance on the spiritual, why don't you e-mail him? The address is benedictxvi@vatican.va. How did I find this out? Let's just say I did some really nasty things. Tchehehe! <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'>

[Sophie]

However, we also have the right to state what we believe in a public forum and share that information with others.
I completely agree. Everyone should have the right to talk about and share the beliefs that they hold dear to them. Yup even scientologists - I love those guys.
However, when religion is forced into our public schools and takes such a huge part of our politics it just gets to a point where it disgusts me. No religion is based on fact. The bible is a series of stories meant to be taken with a grain of salt and used to guide your life. It's not a fucking scientific formula. I'm only going to say this once, if you believe otherwise you're a fucking idiot that fails at faith.
To try and bring something like that into government or force it onto impressionable children as fact is DISGUSTING
Faith is one thing, shaping our future is a completely different. The two should not mix.

[Someguy]

What I was referring to was Miss SallyBakura's statement, in post #27I think another Christian needs to step in the house.
I was asking her what being Christian had to do with being president.

[darkarcher]

Churches and the like shouldn't be allowed, because frankly, you really don't need a building to express your spiritual desires.Religious people have the right to assembly just like everyone else.We should have the strictly secularistic point of view in everything we make as citizens, by default, by using what we actually KNOW.Well, that means that nothing about the past has any relevance in society today except by histroical assumption, which could be argued against. Plus, there are people who will claim that they know God exists from personal experience.However, when religion is forced into our public schools and takes such a huge part of our politics it just gets to a point where it disgusts me.I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand. Religion is hardly allowed in public schools, much less forced upon them. You're quoting the same argument that creationists use when trying to integrate creationism in that children are being taught the theory of evolution exclusively instead of multiple views on the system of origins.

As far as politics go, a religion is typically something that people use to identify their views with others. Whether or not they actually believe it is a separate matter.

[darkarcher]

She was talking about another Christian coming into the discussion, I think.

[Sophie]

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand. Religion is hardly allowed in public schools, much less forced upon them. You're quoting the same argument that creationists use when trying to integrate creationism in that children are being taught the theory of evolution exclusively instead of multiple views on the system of origins.
You obviously do understand because if they teach intelligent design in school, that means they are forcing religion onto children. It's obvious they're referring to the Judo-Christian god when people speak of intelligent design. Anyone who honestly believes the world was created in a week is just... pathetic. It's not scientifically fact. To teach such bullshit to children is just wrong. No where does it say in any evolutionary text that God and evolution could not possibly exist together. So no, it's no where near the same argument. Evolution only disproves god if your seriously brain damaged enough to believe that the entire history of earth can be summed up in 7 days. Evolution is fact. Religion is faith. Never should the to two mix .

[darkarcher]

I'm sorry, but they're both still theories and should at least be treated equally as such. Teaching intelligent design is not forcing religion on anyone if evolution is taught alongside it.Anyone who honestly believes the world was created in a week is just... pathetic.To teach such bullshit......if your seriously brain damaged enough...
I'm also going to ask that you please be respectful of the viewpoints of others instead of making remarks like these.

[agrajagthetesty]

I'm sorry, but they're both still theories and should at least be treated equally
Why should a theory with no observable evidence to support it be treated the same as a theory with plenty of evidence? Perhaps if "intelligent design" wasn't just the politically correct version of creationism, and creationism wasn't based solely on the Bible, which by definition has no proof backing it up, this statement would be fair. But in a school, and especially in a science classroom, children need to be taught the value of proof, and of analysing evidence.

I do agree that Sophie's statements were rude and inappropriate, though.

[darkarcher]

See, the thing is that there is actually some evidence in the Bible's favor also, including vast amounts of historical and archeological accuracy. There's scietific studies that show that it's possible that there was a scientific Adam. There are also archeological allowances for the Biblical flood and so on.

On the side of evolution, there is possible evidence, true, but there are also a lot of holes remaining to be filled. Both are still theories, and both are completely plausible.

[Underling]

desu

[atemssoulmate]

that doesn't stop the bible from being a collection of stories, retold and rewritten a gazillion times, changing and evolving to suit the audience, etc.

[Sophie]

I do agree that Sophie's statements were rude and inappropriate, though.
Cry more.See, the thing is that there is actually some evidence in the Bible's favor also, including vast amounts of historical and archeological accuracy. There's scietific studies that show that it's possible that there was a scientific Adam. There are also archeological allowances for the Biblical flood and so on.
Prove it. I've never heard of such evidence.and both are completely plausible.
The world being created in seven days is not anything close to being plausible.

[darkarcher]

The Bible is historically accurate in all provable points regarding history. It even pointed to the existence of the Assyrian Empire long before acheology discovered it.
Geneologists have traced human genetics back to a probable common ancestor who lived about 10,000 years ago.
There are fossils of aquatic creatures found in mountain ranges and so forth, which leads to the possibility of a global flood.The world being created in seven days is not anything close to being plausible.
If you're talking about God creating the world, then He could have done it all in an instant. He just chose to take seven days.

[Sophie]

That's not good enough. What are they teaching you kids in school these days? Cite your sources!

[darkarcher]

http://home.comcast.net/~whitathey/historyg.htm The date is different than the one I said, but I got my information from a documentary, not here.

It's a commonly accepted fact that there are fish fossils on mountains. However, there is a debate over whether the water rose above the mountains or the mountains were once below sea level. Both are possibilities.

[agrajagthetesty]

This man has been dubbed “Genetic Adam,” though this is a misnomer since he was certainly not the first male modern human.
Quoted from your source, no less.

[darkarcher]

I told you that was not my original source. They're assuming that due to his supposed time of living, that he either couldn't have been a modern man or that there were others before him. However, that is coming from an evolutionary standpoint. A creationist would look at the same evidence and say that you have a common human ancestor, who was also a modern human due to creation as such.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I was asking her what being Christian had to do with being president.
-_-;;
darkarcher was right in what I meant in that I thought another Christian should be part of the discussion. Why you thought I meant the White House is beyond me. I voted for Mitt Romney in the primaries, and he's Mormon. Please don't assume I mean something so close-minded.

As for this whole creationism vs. evolutionism thing (again), I still stand by what I said in the other thread about them possibly coexisting and what WillPhanto said about only having that "creating the world in 7 days" story as something written so the people back then would understand.

[Henriksson]

The Bible is historically accurate in all provable points regarding history.
Oh, there was some regional flood in the mediterranean, and they said that was proof that "Noah" was accurate? Or that Moses could have crossed the "Reed" sea? You, my friend, is sinking deeper in the swamp of denial.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Or that Moses could have crossed the "Reed" sea?
Well then how else did the Israelites escape Egypt? Their enslavement had to end at some point during history...

But I think all that darkarcher is trying to say is that there is archaeological evidence that all that stuff COULD HAVE happened. There probably needs to be a bit more evidence before science can say that it actually did (or fewer anti-religious people completely denying it just because it links toward religious ideas, depending on what the situation behind the research actually is), but I think the fact that there's something in modern research pointing towards that direction means SOMETHING.

[agrajagthetesty]

I told you that was not my original source.
All the same, apparently the documentary you watched stated that this "Adam" lived 10,000 years ago, while the website you linked to states that he could have lived anything up to 140,000 years ago. It seems like there's rather a wide error margin with this theory. Not that I'm dismissing it- I don't know enough about it to be able to do that- it's just that it seems quite new and uncertain just now.A creationist would look at the same evidence and say that you have a common human ancestor, who was also a modern human due to creation as such.
Fossils and other remains have been found of animals that lived millions of years earlier, as well as evidence of the stages of evolution before humans.

[TheFall]

Wow, I leave for a few days and all-out hell breaks loose.Because he is obviously not all knowing.
No, it's because evil is used for to bring forth good. There is NOTHING bad that has ever happened, and hasn't turned out good. Satan and the misery that he causes are both used to create a perfect people.Evolution is fact.
Have you ever experienced our origins? Unless your some immortal being, no. You, no, no one has right to claim that evolution is fact when it has never been shown. Also, I hate to brake this to you, but there is no proof AT ALL that evolution ever happened. No transitional forms, no correct bone samples, no nuthin'. Oh, don't even let me start on the faults in scientists' processes with carbon dating.

Look at these results by some famous evolutionists:
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

“Gould and Eldredge content that: ‘Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assertion from the start—it was never “seen” in the rocks; it expressed the culture and political bias of 19th century liberalism.’ By the same token, while many feel that punctuated equilibrium postulates how speciation occurs, its occurrence is not based on empirical evidence but on the apparent lack of evidence—gaps in the fossil record. Bodnar, Jones and Ellis suggested that one would not see intermediate forms in simple eukaryotes in the fossil record because there are no intermediate forms. A single mutation in a regulatory gene caused the change in one leap of evolutionary development.”

“Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.”
“This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the big bang model is seriously flawed.” -Ouch, those hurt.I think evolution is clearly much less believable.

Those are a few on a long list.

And to the subject of religion, this is my all-time favorite quote. Man, is it so true.
"Ever since the days of Adam, man has been hiding from God and saying, 'God is hard to find.' "-Fulton J. Sheen.

[Someguy]

Where did you get your information?

[Henriksson]

Since you obviously lnow your sources, perhaps you could share us some links or at least tell us where you read it? I will not just accept what you say as a fact, you know.

[Sophie]

There is NOTHING bad that has ever happened, and hasn't turned out good.
The holocaust.Also, I hate to brake this to you, but there is no proof AT ALL that evolution ever happened.
There is no proof AT ALL that a man in the clouds made everything as we see it today in seven days.

[lukeh]

Why must every topic turn religious when I go into it?! And WHY can't I escape the arguement of evolution v.s. creation?!

[Someguy]

Ummmm....This subject didn't turn into religion...It started as religion....It's just gotten WAY off the subject I intended.

[lukeh]

yeah but I kind of messed it up. If I hadn't asked about satanism, we would still be on topic. Now, the topic is the bonus question

[MrsSallyBakura]

There is NOTHING bad that has ever happened, and hasn't turned out good.

The holocaust.
You can only speak from an objective viewpoint. You were not there yourself, so you cannot say whether or not you grew as a person from being a part of it. The whole point of suffering is to grow.
I'm not saying that the holocaust wasn't horrific, because it was, but you can't say absolutely nothing good came from the individual people who experienced it for themselves when you don't know every single one of them or you were not part of it yourself. Do you see what I'm getting at? Obviously the poor people weren't doing a happy dance the whole time, but perhaps the holocaust helped a few individual families grow closer to each other, found ways to escape and start wonderful new lives elsewhere, etc.

[lukeh]

...The holocaust wasn't good. It didn't bring families together naturally either, they just came with fear. They were afraid of losing a family member to the nazis.

[TheFall]

Using a different computer, will get the links as soon as possible.

The holocaust, huh? I'm gonna quote this from a website:
"In addition, studies have shown that Holocaust survivors and their children have a tendency to be task-oriented and hard workers. They also know how to actively cope with and adapt to challenges. Strong family values is another positive characteristic displayed by many survivors and their children."- http://judaism.about.com/od/holocaust/a/hol_gens_2.htm

There is no proof in either catagories. There is no proof to the origins of the universe; it is all a matter of faith. Faith is, defined by the Bible "is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." -Hebrews 11:1 Most dictionaries define it in a similar way. But anyway, our origins is much more religion than science.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Again, speaking with an objective viewpoint.

Thank you TheFall for the link. Again obviously the holocaust wasn't a good thing, and no one in the right mind would want to be a part of it, but just like with every bit of suffering, it helps people grow. I can speak from personal experience, though unless you REALLY want to know I won't bother posting it.

Also, a definition of "faith" from dictionary.com:
"Belief that is not based on proof."
And believe it or not, it takes faith to say that God doesn't exist. It's a different kind of faith because it's more of a faith in something they want to disprove, but it's faith nonetheless, especially since you can't really scientifically "disprove" something; you can only go by certain pieces of evidence, such as "contradictions in the Bible" or "suffering" and what-not. :/

[Someguy]

Apparently my topic has spun out of control to something completely different... @_@

[killshot]

Also, I hate to brake this to you, but there is no proof AT ALL that evolution ever happened. No transitional forms, no correct bone samples, no nuthin'. Oh, don't even let me start on the faults in scientists' processes with carbon dating.
No transitional forms huh? I googled "transitional species" and found this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

It turns out there are several transitional fossils on record and all it took was a basic knowledge of how to use a search engine to find them. Also, "brake.""In addition, studies have shown that Holocaust survivors and their children have a tendency to be task-oriented and hard workers. They also know how to actively cope with and adapt to challenges. Strong family values is another positive characteristic displayed by many survivors and their children."
So you are saying the holocaust was actually a good thing because it built character? Are you sure you want to go with that?

[MrsSallyBakura]

So you are saying the holocaust was actually a good thing because it built character?

No, no, no, and furthermore, no. Please read what I said too.
I'm not saying that the holocaust wasn't horrific, because it was

Again obviously the holocaust wasn't a good thing, and no one in the right mind would want to be a part of it, but just like with every bit of suffering, it helps people grow.

[killshot]

There were a few things I wanted to bring up in my last post, but didn't have the time.

Regarding a statement made by TheFall, carbon dating is very reliable when finding an approximate age of a fossil. The thing that makes carbon dating so reliable is that the artifact in question is subjected to several different kinds of radiometric dating. Each test measures the decay of different radioactive elements inside the artifact. All of these tests are independant of one another and yet they all indicate that the artifact is from the same time period. Carbon 14 is not the only element used in dating artifacts and no less than half a dozen different radiometric tests are performed on the artifact before a general age is agreed upon.

I have a problem with this statement here:And believe it or not, it takes faith to say that God doesn't exist.
It takes no faith at all to dismiss irrational claims that offer no evidence to back them up. Does it take faith to belive that Santa Claus doesn't exist? All evidence points to the non existance of God and it takes no faith to believe in what the evidence is pointing to.

To MrsSallyBakura:

I did read what you said about the holocaust and my post was not directed at you. However, I think that using the holocaust as an example to show how some good can come from terrible things belittles the suffering that the Jewish people endured. I understand the point you are trying to make, but you should use an example that is less insulting.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but you should use an example that is less insulting.
I only used it as an example because Sophie brought it up. I understand that it is insulting and I guess I wasn't really thinking about it at the time, so I apologize for that, but under normal circumstances I probably wouldn't use it as an example myself.
It takes no faith at all to dismiss irrational claims that offer no evidence to back them up.
True.
All evidence points to the non existance of God and it takes no faith to believe in what the evidence is pointing to.
What is this evidence? Enlighten me.

[killshot]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, God the failed hypothesis:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm

[Someguy]

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm
That...
That's beautiful!

[MrsSallyBakura]

I read the first part with the list of, "God is blah. Therefore, God is blah. But God cannot be blah and blah. Hence, God does not exist." It jumps to conclusions way too quickly; the argument needs more transition.
I don't have time or the words to argue against every single one of those claims, but I do have the perfect one for this:
A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

1. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

1. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.

1. But the universe is not perfect.

1. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.

1. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
Wow, it is absolutely mind-boggling how this one in particular jumps to so many conclusions without even touching on anything in between.

The first two points transition well. But once you get to the third one:
If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
Says who? Probably the *imperfect* humans who would say, "Well if I were God I'd make everything perfect." Well you are not God. Maybe God didn't want to make everything perfect. Anyone who is perfect has the choice to make something imperfect. If I knew how to make the perfect cake, I could choose to add olives to make it imperfect.

Quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Providence and the scandal of evil.

309 If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.
I know it's the Catholic Catechism, but I'm pretty sure Protestants can agree with this too.

[Someguy]

It jumps to conclusions way too quickly
How about this one?
1. Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.

1. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.

1. If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.

1. Therefore god is not omnipotent.

[MrsSallyBakura]

This one is tougher. I'll admit this is a good one and an exception to the "jumping to conclusions" bit I mentioned.
In this case it's not so much that God cannot make the stone, but rather His supernatural being makes this situation a bit irrelevant. In our natural world it is impossible to be omnipotent, and since this logic comes from the natural world, how does it apply to the supernatural?

[Someguy]

If he cannot make the stone, or he cannot move the stone, he is not omnipotent. There is no loop hole to this one.

[killshot]

In our natural world it is impossible to be omnipotent, and since this logic comes from the natural world, how does it apply to the supernatural?
That arguement is meant to show that the very existance of a supernatural omnipotent being presents a paradox. Because of the paradox created, said supernatural being cannot exist without violating the laws of nature.

To answer your question, lets assume that God created us. If this is true, then it is safe to say that he gave us the ability to reason, Using the same logic that would have been given by God, we reach the logical conclusion that the being known as God does not exist. If God truely does exist, why would the logic he gave to us lead us away from him? Is God purposefully trying to decieve everyone into thinking that he doesn't exist?

[Sophie]

This is more so a paradox then proof that god does not exist.

[Tatterdemalion]

Nietzsche says God is dead.

[Sophie]

And Seto Kaiba agrees
http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc233/Cefferis/kaiba12.png
*shot*

I'M SO SORRY
I just had to bring it up~

[Tatterdemalion]

That's surprisingly funny.

[Tatterdemalion]

You know, reading over this whole paradox with the rock, and all that other stuff, I just have to ask, isn't it interesting that everyone seems so ready to define the Diety Formerly Known As God in purely human terms? Think about it, people assign characteristics (virtue, morality, etc.) as well as mundane tasks (i..e., lifting rocks)...It seems to me that the first requirement for anyone who tries to argue about God and logic is the belief that God is a person. I think that people really should reassess their priorities, and exactly what they're trying to prove God is or isn't before they have this argument. And why, for that matter.

Oh, and in reference to something killshot said, I don't think anyone is saying that God created logic. You must be thinking of the Greeks.

Oh and the much simpler answer is that God exists, but is not omnipotent. It's in the Bible. Maybe you should do some research before posting.

[darkarcher]

If God truely does exist, why would the logic he gave to us lead us away from him?
Because logic can also lead people to God, depending on the application of the reasoning. If you have time, I would recommend that you read C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity at some time...at least the first 5 chapters anyway.

[killshot]

I regard to Tatterdemalion's question about viewing God in human terms, I am going to copypasta one of my posts from another topic that I think fits well into this situation....religion is nothing more than a first attempt to understand the world around us. In the infancy of mankind, early humans made up all sorts of explainations to satisfy their natural curiosity. A simple way to explain our existance is to assume that someone made us. It is human nature to assume that there is human or human-like involvement at work in unexplainable phenomenon. If you want proof of this, just listen to the questions of a young child (has a child ever asked you who makes it rain? Or who planted all the trees?) God is just the personified manifestation of all mankind's unanswered questions. Now that science has stepped in and explained all of those previously unanswered questions, there is no need for God in this world. The bible says that man was created in God's image, however the opposite is true. I don't think anyone is saying that God created logic.
I was posing this as a hypthetical. If indeed God does exist, he would have been the one who gave us the ability to reason. Also, humans were born with the ability to use logic. Saying the greeks invented logic is like saying cave men invented breathing, The greeks may have made several advances in schools of thought, but they can't be credited with inventing a natural human ability. Maybe you should do some research before posting.
Maybe you shouldn't be so arrogant. The bible contains all sorts of conflicting information, so it is laughable to consider it as a legitimate source. The modern christian idea of God is that he is an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving being. The bible really doesn't have a whole lot to do with Christianity anymore.If you have time, I would recommend that you read C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity at some time
Do you have a link? I wouldn't mind reading it, but I refuse to pay money for religious propaganda.

[darkarcher]

Do you have a link? I wouldn't mind reading it, but I refuse to pay money for religious propaganda.
I'm sorry, but I don't. The book should be less than $10 at any given bookstore if you're truly interested.

[Tatterdemalion]

Relax, you don't have to take everything I say so seriously.

And as far as how what the Bible says relates to the Christian idea of God, just remember one thing you left out: Jews believe in God too. (and so do Muslims, for that matter)

[killshot]

Jews may believe in God, but a main part of this topic is hell. As far as I know, the Jews don't believe in the christian concept of hell so it wouldn't make much sense to include Jews in my argument. You may be right about Muslims, but I don't know enough about their religion to refute any of their beliefs.

Sorry for over reacting, but I don't know you well enough to tell if you are being hostile or not. It is sometimes hard to establish context over the Internet.

[darkarcher]

Just to provide a little context, Muslims believe that the path to heaven lies in following the 5 Pillars of Islam (certain sects believe in a 6th pillar of jihad). The more that the Muslim follows these paths, the more likely that he will go to heaven. However, the discretion is left up to Allah. According to Muslims, there is no way to absolutely be admitted (however, the same sects as above believe that death through jihad assures entrance to heaven). Any person who wasn't a "good Muslim", or if Allah just decides to reject them, will go the hell.

[langleyassault]

<i>Post censored by DarkWarrior.</i>

[ArtificialRobot]

Secularists and Religious people alike should take up and read The Portable Atheist. It is a collections of works by various authors put together by Christopher Hitchens. It talks about a lot of the topics brought up in this thread.

Before I go on to some of those, though, I'll answer the original post first.

What do you think about religion? I am not a fan.

As a bonus question, and you may or may not answer this, it is up to you, why not tell us your religion? - I am a secular humanist. I do not have a religion.

For the other topics discussed in the thread...

After doing personal research into Creationism and Evolution (and I suppose as a sub-topic of Creationism - Intelligent Design), I weighed them against each other and personally found Evolution to be the more logical system to follow. Semantics of the words used in the argument aside (The definition of "theory" becomes very lenient in this debate), that is just what I personally choose to accept as my reality.

However, I would like to point out that there is (plenty) of evidence that supports the theory of evolution (and in this topic I am going to assume that we are only speaking about biology, because evolution can be seen elsewhere as well). To say that there isn't any evidence is just wrong. It is like standing next to a tree, leaning on that tree, looking to see what you are leaning on, touching the tree, and then concluding that there is no such thing as a tree. This evidence is part (if not most) of the reason that Intelligent Design is taking over the reigns of Creationism. It tries to incorporate the science into its beliefs.

In addition, it would be interesting to know if those who are skeptical to evolution have ever received a flu shot, or have at least heard of it before (as an aside, please note that not all those who subscribe to evolution are atheists).

I have browsed a few other threads in the forum that touch on the religious topic as well. It seems as if it is heavily moderated and censored. Since I cannot see what was previously posted in all cases (I am a new user, long time fan of the series though), I can only hope that the moderators of these forums are open to all sides of the matter and are not censoring based entirely or even partially on their own views.

**Edit - changed "trees" to "a tree"

[darkarcher]

In addition, it would be interesting to know if those who are skeptical to evolution have ever received a flu shot, or have at least heard of it before (as an aside, please note that not all those who subscribe to evolution are atheists).
Just wondering what you mean by this.I have browsed a few other threads in the forum that touch on the religious topic as well. It seems as if it is heavily moderated and censored. Since I cannot see what was previously posted in all cases (I am a new user, long time fan of the series though), I can only hope that the moderators of these forums are open to all sides of the matter and are not censoring based entirely or even partially on their own views.
No, it's just that most topics that begin talking about religion eventually descend into flaming and most of the posts end up censored.

[ArtificialRobot]

Hi darkarcher,

With regards to influenza - we (as a society) have to keep "upping the ante" against it, so to say. This is because influenza has evolved and mutated. It is why vaccines from five years ago (even last year) may not protect you from the type of flu that is out there this year.

If you wanted to read up on it, I tried to do a search on the topic and came up with a few results, most of them being published studies on how the virus evolves and where it evolved from. I found an article that challenges what specific type of evolution the virus undergoes as well (found here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061201110251.htm)). Here are a few of the others:

Origin and Evolution of Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin Genes (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/4/501)

Evolution of influenza virus genes (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/4/289?ijkey=493efab54ccb98021f4cc24e500569bee13ecbde&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)

Evolution of avian influenza viruses. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10799775?dopt=Abstract)

Positive Darwinian Evolution in Human Influenza A Viruses (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/10/4270) (this should open a PDF file)

There are also links within most of the articles that cite works the authors have used that are helpful. You are welcome to research the topic on your own as to eliminate any subconscious bias I may have.

I used the statement to point out that by receiving a flu shot, one would have to admit that the flu virus evolves, otherwise - why receive a new flu shot every year? Of course, I am certain that there are arguments against that as well, but I have not seen one that can provide repeatable science to back it up as of yet.

On the topic of mods - good to know! Maybe at some point in the future a thread of this nature can be without flames, and true debates can be carried on.

[darkarcher]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I had assumed that you meant that, but I wanted to make sure.

As far as Darwinian evolution, which I'm taking to mean natural selection within a species, I do not have a problem with it. However, I find the theory of inter-species evolution (macroevolution) to be lacking in concrete evidence. Of course, a lot of the "evidence" that is presented by either side of this argument are a matter of perception, so it's hard to ever reach a workable conclusion to such arguments.

[killshot]

The majority of people who split evolution into "micro" and "macro" are creationists. There is no difference between the two and they both should just be called evolution. "Macro" evolution is simply "micro" evolution continued over a long period of time. Saying the two are different is like saying, "I can drive my car 10 miles, but not 100 miles." Small changes continue to occur within a species until the species is changed so radically that it becomes a new species entirely.

[ArtificialRobot]

You bring up a good point. I just hope that at some point both sides can speak calmly, so that we can solve this once and for all. Otherwise, the progress is stunted.

And to both you and killshot - I must admit, this is the first I have heard of macro/micro evolution. I will have to do more research on the differences. Also, killshot calls to mind something I had heard that was recently suggested (slightly off-topic), which was that down the line, humans may evolve into two separate species. The topic intrigued me (and called to mind the movie "Idiocracy"), but I did not follow up with further research, so I can't say much about it (it is probably best that such a topic be kept to another thread anyhow).

[DarkWarrior]

After doing personal research into Creationism and Evolution (and I suppose as a sub-topic of Creationism - Intelligent Design), I weighed them against each other and personally found Evolution to be the more logical system to follow. Semantics of the words used in the argument aside (The definition of "theory" becomes very lenient in this debate), that is just what I personally choose to accept as my reality.

However, I would like to point out that there is (plenty) of evidence that supports the theory of evolution (and in this topic I am going to assume that we are only speaking about biology, because evolution can be seen elsewhere as well). To say that there isn't any evidence is just wrong. It is like standing next to a tree, leaning on that tree, looking to see what you are leaning on, touching the tree, and then concluding that there is no such thing as a tree. This evidence is part (if not most) of the reason that Intelligent Design is taking over the reigns of Creationism. It tries to incorporate the science into its beliefs.

In addition, it would be interesting to know if those who are skeptical to evolution have ever received a flu shot, or have at least heard of it before (as an aside, please note that not all those who subscribe to evolution are atheists).

I tend to believe that evolution is, in fact, a part of the growth of life. I also believe in creationism. We have no proof one way or another to suggest that someone did create the universe. Likewise, we have little to no proof to back the Big Bang theory, either. I tend to think that it's somewhere in between the two. I can not deny that it is entirely within the realm of possibility that there is a higher life form out there. I've chosen to follow the Catholic religion, as the interpretation of things, in my opinion, is rather sound. Now, you can disagree with this, and that's fine. You may also point out that the Catholic church tends to deny the Big Bang theory, and you're right. However, they would be accepting of it, were there more evidence. But you can not deny that it's entirely possible, even just as likely, that an intelligent being, high above our realm of existence, created, or sparked the creation of, the universe, as opposed to an accidental creation.that is just what I personally choose to accept as my reality.
Just arguing word use here, but:
Reality is reality. Perception and acceptance vary, but what is real applies to everyone everywhere. The definition of reality may be up for debate, but there can't be individual realities. Otherwise, we'd all exist in our own, self-defined, pocket universe.I have browsed a few other threads in the forum that touch on the religious topic as well. It seems as if it is heavily moderated and censored. Since I cannot see what was previously posted in all cases (I am a new user, long time fan of the series though), I can only hope that the moderators of these forums are open to all sides of the matter and are not censoring based entirely or even partially on their own views.
It's generally topic & post pending. This topic is great, when we don't have the fanatics on both sides who are utterly incapable of handling things maturely. As far as your concerns about censoring unbiasedly, I can think of two examples offhand, though one was lost in the server attack.
We had two users, one, RealFolkBlues, and the other, NuttyWithPower.
Both were fanatics, and incapable of engaging in proper discussion. The first, RealFolkBlues, on the right, and the other, NuttyWithPower, on the left. I was forced to take action against both, though Nutty didn't wind up with a permban, because neither was capable of discussing anything. But, as I'm sure you can tell, I'm leaning toward the right-wing. So I hope this helps settle any worries you have about that.

[ArtificialRobot]

Thanks for easing those concerns!

As far as reality, I think of it in a psychological sense (as in perceived reality and actual reality). Perhaps the actual word I should have used to differentiate between the two is "illusion," though the word tends to have negative connotations when speaking in regards to one's mind.

You made mention here...But you can not deny that it's entirely possible, even just as likely, that an intelligent being, high above our realm of existence, created, or sparked the creation of, the universe, as opposed to an accidental creation.
...that I could not deny that it is possible (unless you were using the general "you"). When it all comes down to it, if we find that initial source and can repeatedly prove that source exists, it may just be a matter of words. Does that make sense? I am not nearly as eloquent as the many authors I have read who have explained it better. Any way, if you were referring to me and not people in general, I would have to say that personally, I am 100% certain that such an entity does not exist. Even if it were to boil down to words, I would not use god as mine. But others may choose to do so, and that is their choice.

[DarkWarrior]

The thing is, we have no real conclusive proof for anything. We haven't even left our own solar system yet, and people already are certain about things which could take hundreds of of thousands of millenia to figure out. The universe is massive, possibly infinite, and we haven't even scratched the surface. Why, then, does it make sense to disregard a very real possibility, based on the next-to-nothing knowledge that we have?

[ArtificialRobot]

Well, I've done a lot of research, both scientific and philosophical (research which is always ongoing). I've found that it goes beyond just saying, "Oh, look. The Big Bang Theory." Infinite universe aside - the laws throughout said universe are a constant. If you're interested, you can always start by reading the works of physicists (Hawking is a good place to start). I've recently read a compelling excerpt that delves into both science and philosophy by Victor Stenger that I would recommend to anybody.

For a moment, let's turn the argument around. There are people who believe with 100% certainty that there is a god, but this is based on next-to-nothing knowledge.

Now, to bring us back to the "no conclusive proof for anything" statement - I think science hits the nail on the head. It will continue to prove that the things we claim to be supernatural are in fact, natural. Which comes back to my statement about our choice of words. Some may choose to explain that final natural thing as god, and some may choose to describe it as a law of physics.

[killshot]

It's worth mentioning that some people who are certain that the christian God does not exist do not discount the possibility of an all powerful entity who created the universe. I think that if an all powerful being did exist, it would be something that humans can't possibly comprehend. To me, it sounds foolish and arrogant to assume a god exists and that people are capable of knowing that god's thoughts and desires. I do not believe in a god because there has never been any reason to assume one exists. That may change one day, but for now there is no evidence to support the existance of a god.

[DarkWarrior]

If you read closely into the Catholic religion, you'll notice that it specifically states that one could not understand it.
And to wait for evidence...Well, there's a problem there, because, like I said, we haven't scratched the surface in regards to the universe. A superior being that influenced or started creation is equally as viable an explanation as an accidental collision of atoms. I don't get the logic of "no evidence that a god is there", when there's no evidence for anything we currently believe.

[killshot]

They may say that no one can understand their religion, but they seem to know a lot of intimate details about what God likes and dislikes. How could someone who doesn't understand God know that he wants all children to be circumcised and all homosexuals to be stoned to death?

In regard to a God being just as likely as a secular explaination, which of these seems more likely:

1.) In the beginning there was matter...

2.) In the beginning there was an infinitely complex being of unknown origin who created matter...

[DarkWarrior]

As far as any specific religion, you can say what you will about them, no matter how right or wrong it may be. As for the second...

They both seem equally likely, simply due to the fact that we don't know. We won't have any solid information for several hundred millenia, assuming we survive that long. Everything at this point is mere speculation with information that can be called trivial at best.

[Underling]

ermm... i don't know how you think science works, but there's plenty of evidence for the big bang, else we'd never have come up with it in the first place...

and even if there wasn't, just because you don't know something doesn't make all possible answers equally likely...

[dragonqueen]

i like different aspects of different religion though im not religious myself, i find some aspects of religion hard to follow ect not goin into it too much
im just saying this that i believe (mostly with christianity) that some religions have less effect on people now days.
and yes there are some "scientific" aspects that are guesses and unexplained but i do not alys believe the religios explintions either


i have no idea where im going with this

[Yuikiko]

I feel that the bible was created only to conquer the Roman empire. Now said use is being used on the entire world, and it is starting with American politics and the middle east. I actually feel that the bible is not meant to be taken seriously in many parts of it, at all.

If it was the word of God, yet men wrote it, then is it really god's word or some guy that drank too much wine?

And to the creationists that try to force Intelligent Design into the school because they don't believe in evolution: has anyone actually witnessed god creating the world? What makes you so sure that its true only because it is in the bible, yet God also could have made us through evolution?

If god wanted our men circumsized, wouldn't we be born that way?

What about the animals? Where do they go when they die?

If god made satan, wouldn't he also be able to destroy him easily?

All of these just boggles my mind over this faith.

[darkarcher]

And to the creationists that try to force Intelligent Design into the school because they don't believe in evolution: has anyone actually witnessed god creating the world? What makes you so sure that its true only because it is in the bible, yet God also could have made us through evolution?
No, but neither has anyone witnessed the Big Bang or seen a species completely change into another.If god wanted our men circumsized, wouldn't we be born that way?
Circumcision is a method God enacted in the Old Testament as a way of showing that a person was identified as a part of Israel. This was kept in the New Testament due mostly to hygeine, since Paul himself says that it is not necessary for a person to be circumcized in order to be a Christian.What about the animals? Where do they go when they die?
Animals were not created with souls, so the common belief is that they cease to exist when they die.If god made satan, wouldn't he also be able to destroy him easily?
Yes, He could. However, God allows evil to exist because the existance of evil forces humanity to make a choice.

[DarkWarrior]

ermm... i don't know how you think science works, but there's plenty of evidence for the big bang, else we'd never have come up with it in the first place...

and even if there wasn't, just because you don't know something doesn't make all possible answers equally likely...
We have two theories, essentially. What exactly is there that knocks off intelligent design? Let's say Big Bang is right, well, where did the matter come in the first place? Was it just accident? What exactly happened?

We don't know because there's only so much we've been able to find out.I feel that the bible was created only to conquer the Roman empire. Now said use is being used on the entire world, and it is starting with American politics and the middle east. I actually feel that the bible is not meant to be taken seriously in many parts of it, at all.
Which explains why it survived 1,500 years between the Roman Empire and America.
If it was the word of God, yet men wrote it, then is it really god's word or some guy that drank too much wine?
The belief is that it was God's influence with the people who wrote it.
And to the creationists that try to force Intelligent Design into the school because they don't believe in evolution: has anyone actually witnessed god creating the world? What makes you so sure that its true only because it is in the bible, yet God also could have made us through evolution?
Reverse logic and that the general public is forcing people to practice and believe their own religions on their own and never tell anyone anything about it. Just as bad. Also, you just entered the gray area, and the church will probably eventually acknowledge evolution, that is, inside one's own species, but not that new species could be formed.If god wanted our men circumsized, wouldn't we be born that way?
It's taught that free will needs to be involved, and that we aren't all drones, and we need to make decisions for ourselves.What about the animals? Where do they go when they die?
Supposedly, sentient beings would have souls. Animals aren't sentient.If god made satan, wouldn't he also be able to destroy him easily?
Because it is taught that he would not destroy the spirit of something. In extreme situations, he would kill (Sodom and Gommorah come to mind), but not destroy the spirit.All of these just boggles my mind over this faith.
This, and it isn't just you, is a big problem. People knock it without looking into it at all. And those who look into it only do so to get a little bit of information that they can hit as "hypocritical" or "inconsistent". But they don't do their full research, and they knock down only what little they do know,

[Underling]

We don't know because there's only so much we've been able to find out.
yeah... i know... that's why it's a theory...
still much more likely than god...

[killshot]

This, and it isn't just you, is a big problem. People knock it without looking into it at all. And those who look into it only do so to get a little bit of information that they can hit as "hypocritical" or "inconsistent". But they don't do their full research, and they knock down only what little they do know,
What exactly do you mean by full research? Althought I may be a baised skeptic, I have read the bible in its entirety. From this research I have concluded that it is mostly nonsense with a few wise parables thrown in. Even people who study the bible their whole lives can't come to a consensus on things that should be fairly important to the christian faith. For example, what is the holy trinity? Are God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all the same person or are they separate entities? If they are the same, why would Jesus call out to himself on the cross? If they are separate then wouldn't christianity be a polythiestic religion? What good is research going to do if bible scholars can't even figure this stuff out?

[ArtificialRobot]

There is a A LOT to knock down intelligent design. A lot. Much more than a series of ancient texts. Sooo much more. But one has to be willing to actually do the research instead of just taking someone else's word for it that it doesn't exist yet, because it simply does. It goes far beyond "Hey! A fossil!"

Species. I think perhaps the word species is being misused in this thread. Are we speaking of the "kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species" sort of method? Because that is what I think of when I think of the evolution of species.

For the big bang, sure we haven't witnessed it (though if we want to get down to the nitty gritty we were technically all there, just not atomically put together...). But there is something called the Big Bang Echo that could sort of be described as witnessing the Big Bang billions of years later.

Let's turn the "where did it (matter) come from" argument around again - where did this god come from?

I suppose we must start with how we define god. Is he beyond comprehension, all knowing, all powerful..etc., or is he subject to the same whims and rules that humans are, which would suggest that he would have to be created by yet something else in the first place. He can only be one or the other. It seems irrational to me to create something that pisses you off. It seems irrational to claim you love something yet still threaten it with eternal punishment (that's longer than a life sentence). He is either perfect or imperfect with limited power. He cannot float between the two. -1 + 1 = 0, correct?

So I suppose that once we establish which sort of god we are talking about, we can more accurately approach not only where he came from, but why he apparently thinks the things that he thinks.

Circumcision - I hope that as a society we still don't believe that it's about hygiene. In fact, in America where the religious find it so important to procreate, one would think that keeping certain parts around would make it more desirable to do so. And don't even get me started on the horrors of female circumcision.

Now, the survival of the Bible. Let's call to mind illiteracy, the dark ages, barbarism, money, power...to name a few. People, to put it bluntly, didn't know better.

Also - I'd like to add myself to the list of people who have read the Bible in its entirety. In addition, I truly do encourage those who do not believe that the science exists to go out and do their own research. They may even find it beneficial to their own argument, because at the very least, they would not be claiming that said research does not exist anymore.

(I apologize for the lack of flow inthis post, as there was a lot to hit and little time for me to do so this week.)

[ZhouYu]

I am a born and raised Christian and my belief on the matter of religions is...they are a load of bollocks, I actually turn my back on what they talk about because my opinion is based on my experiences and my own knowledge base, and when your own religion contradicts itself if makes you wonder. In this day in age we have no need for them, can't people think for themselves? Can't people not decide for themselves what is right and wrong? We don't need all of these religions saying that, 'oh, but ours is the real religion' or 'Your God isn't real' can't people understand that you have the right to your own opinion, as long as you don't try to force their opinion onto others.
I'd like to believe more in the way of science and let natural facts depict my view of the world. That doesn't mean I am gonna go out of my way just to turn a few heads. Whenever I am out on the town and I see those bums out preaching about Christianity I am actually offended by it, not because of the religion but because what they are doing is wrong. It makes me ashamed to be part of what they are.
To me it doesn't matter what you believe in, as long as you believe yourself that it is what you really want and that you don't try to force others into believing something that conflicts with theirs.
I still attend the 'Blessing of the Graves events every year, not because of my religion but because of my respect for the dead, like I said you don't need to believe in a religion to know what is right and what is wrong.

Everyone is different, don't try and change them, just understand them.

[darkarcher]

I'm sorry, but might I point out some things I found about your argument that bother me?To me it doesn't matter what you believe in......you have the right to your own opinion...
...as opposed to these......my belief on the matter of religions is...they are a load of bollocks......can't people think for themselves?
It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself here. People choose their religion, and you say that people can believe what they want, but then continue to put down religion as a lesser viewpoint and exalting your own.

On a similar note...Can't people not decide for themselves what is right and wrong?
...against this...Whenever I am out on the town and I see those bums out preaching about Christianity... ...what they are doing is wrong.
If you truly believe that a person decides their own right and wrong, how can you justify calling someone else's actions wrong if that person is right in their own eyes?

One more...Whenever I am out on the town and I see those bums out preaching about Christianity I am actually offended by it, not because of the religion...
This statement contradicts itself in that one of the primary beliefs of Christianity is that the followers should witness to others. If that preaching offends you, then the religion itself offends you. Also, it would help if you defined what you mean by "preaching", since different people follow different methods that may be more or less acceptable.

[RedRook]

One day, I'm telling you. The squid people are gonna take over and when that happens, whoo boy, will we be in for a scare.

[ZhouYu]

I was referring to the fact that I don't like them trying to persuade others into believing something else, I don't mind if they believe what they believe but trying to tell others that their religion is the right one is just wrong to me.

What I am trying to say is to me it seems wrong for them to do this, not that they are wrong if you know what I mean, it is like pressuring someone into believing when in fact I believe that others have the right to their own opinion.

And as far as the people not thinking for themselves I said that because no matter what religion you take you take on all of that religions views on the world, even though those views may conflict with your own, and therefore I called the need for religions a load of bollocks.

Again this is my opinion on the matter, it may not be the right opinion to everyone but isn't that what makes us different.

[Yoh]

No, Killshot, (hehe, I accidentally typed i in place of o) small changes do NOT go on indefinitely. You can breed any species of rodent all you want, but you'll never make it bigger than a great dane. And don't give me that mutation bullshit. If mutations benefited evolution, then incest wouldn't be taboo.

[killshot]

And don't give me that mutation bullshit.
Don't post if you don't know what you're talking about.

[Tatterdemalion]

Wow, for the first time ever in this sort of thread killshot and I are in agreeance.Hooray for everyone

[JesusRocks]

Surprisingly, this thread seems less intense that the other one... I'm gonna hang out here to rest for a bit...

@Darkarcher: Spirits, not Souls... That which humans were uniquely created with, is Spirit. Dogs think, feel, memorize things, get hurt, mourn, learn, have all range of emotions that humans do, same goes for all animal life - this is what the Soul is: Our Mind, Emotions, Will and Memories, and everything attached onto those. It is the Spirit which gives a human the ability to have relationship with God and thus makes us unique.

@Killshot: The concept of the Trinity is difficult to understand and I, nor anyone else on the planet can explain or understand the extend and complexity of God's tri-unity. However tri-unity of a sort happens in human democratic government. In a democratic system, the State is made up of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. All are the State, but all play different yet equal roles. They are different institutions, but are inseparably linked to be the same entity. The Legislature and Judiciary without the Executive is not the State. All three institutions are inseparable, linked and yet are not the same as each other.
Also, most, worldviews (atheism being the notable exception in for the most part rejecting the notion of the Spirit) subscribe that a Human Being is made up of Mind(Soul), Body, and Spirit. In a sense, we as humans are also a Trinity (which also shows a further link to us being made in God's image). My Mind is Me, My Body is Me, My Spirit is Me.

- I hope this goes some way to clarifying slightly... ^_^

[Spoofs3]

I do not like the concept of so called "spirits"
I do not like it due to it only deals with human beings.
This leaves many animals out of the loop aswell as the possibility of alien beings (Why create a universe just for us?")
I have never liked the idea of the earth being special to God nor humans being Gods children because that only assumes aliens do not exist leaving possibly more intellegent species without a spirit.
That is my views on Spirits
PS: I Still believe in a God, And/Or gods

[Yoh]

If I didn't know what I was talking about, I would have neglected making an arguement against you.

[killshot]

Sigh...

Gather round boys and girls and Uncle Killshot will tell you all about the story of evolution.

Every time a piece of DNA is replicated, the long chain of nucleotides unwinds and splits into two halves. DNA polymerase then synthesizes a new strand of DNA by adding the complimentary nucleotide to the 3' end of the existing nucleotide strand. (I'm skipping quite a bit. Anyone with an interest in biology can look this process up later.) During the process of replication, mistakes are sometimes made. DNA polymerase synthesizes nucleotide pairs at a rate of 50 pairs per second and this results in about one error per every million nucleotides added. Luckily, DNA polymerase has a self correcting process which fixes the mistakes made during the process. However, sometimes these errors are overlooked or the proteins that do the correcting can be damaged. This can result in a mutation within an organism. An example of a mutation within an organism would be the mutation of oncogenes which can cause a tumor to develop.

This is just how mutations can occur with mitosis. Meiosis has much more mixing and matching involved and has a greater possibility of mutation.

Now, moving onto how mutations can be beneficial. Consider this scenario: Once upon a time, all giraffes had short necks. One day, a giraffe was born with a mutation that made it's neck grow much longer than the necks of the other giraffes (Not sure of the plural form of giraffe.) This special giraffe could eat leaves from the tops of the trees and it never had to compete for food. Naturally, this giraffe survived to produce offspring that carried the genes for long necks. After several hundred years, the long neck giraffes outnumbered the short necked variety. The short necked giraffes died out and were replaced by the long necked giraffes that were better suited to the environment.

This process is called natural selection. Charles Darwin observed that finches had different shaped beaks depending on which environment they are native to. He hypothesized that the finches that were better suited to their environment were the ones who survived to pass on their genes. Similar observations were made with several species of animals.

Now for evidence that we share a common ancestor with apes. The common misconception is that we evolved from apes, which isn't true. Somewhere along the line, a single species split into two different species, humans and apes. Since we are so closely related to apes, we should be able to find genetic evidence that links us together. Some people make the claim that since apes (when I say apes I am referring to gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans) have 24 pairs of chromosomes, they can't be linked to humans because we only have 23 pairs. However, upon closer inspection we can see that one of our chromosome pairs (second pair I believe) appears to be a fusion of two chromosome pairs found in apes.

More convincing evidence can be found in the form of retroviruses. Retroviruses are the remains of an ancient infection found in human DNA. (Once again giving the short version) Traces of these retroviruses can also be found in ape DNA. What makes this discovery so profound is the fact that the virus is found on the same nucleotide pairs in both humans and apes. The odds of this happening coincidentally are astronomical. This is solid evidence that humans and apes indeed have common ancestry.

The end.

Maybe you should take a biology class before you start making up facts out of the air.

[Yoh]

No scientist worth their salt completely rejects natural selection. The problem is when we think the process can go on for eternity. It cannot. This is why mutation is used as an excuse, because they allow us to defy that boundry. And thus my mention of incest comes into play, because that's a fine source of mutations.

Wow, the chromosome "apears" to be fused? The Atheistic habbit of learning entirely via observation is getting old. I'd like to see this chromosome unfused in someone. They'll give birth to a chimp or something, right?

If astronomical odds automatically equil solid evidence, then there would be no such thing as amino acids, which cannot be created naturally without amino acids previously existing. Just for the record, proteins (the building blocks of all organisms, both single and multiple) are made of amino acids.

What I pulled "out of the air" was thrown up (pun intended) by those who take this seriously. I made no claim of my own about the subject other than the most logical conclusion between a Scientific fact and a popular excuse used by supporters of Evolution.

Now if you excuse me, I'm off to create the master race with my cousin. (Or not.) PS: I took Biology in 10 Grade, it was just better than yours. So was NOVA.

[killshot]

They'll give birth to a chimp or something, right?
Why even open your mouth? If astronomical odds automatically equil solid evidence, then there would be no such thing as amino acids,...
Does not compute? Honesty, what are you trying to say?

I have already explained the process of mutation into another species. If you already know that changes within a species can occur, then it should be obvious that these changes can and will keep occurring until a new species is formed. You are quick to point out that not all mutations are good, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that some are beneficial.

You bring up incest quite frequently so I suppose I have to explain this too. Incest is indeed a source of mutations, however incest causes the gene pool to shrink and in turn decreases the genetic diversity of the organism. You are also forgetting the "natural" part of natural selection. Organisms that are born with mutations can be advantaged or disadvantaged. The disadvantaged organism will most likely be unable to survive and pass it's defective genes onto future generations. In the case of humans, children (defective or not) are protected from harm and are not subject to nature's unbiased judgment. Survival of the fittest does not apply to humans because all people are protected, no matter what their capabilities are.

What exactly do you mean by "excuse?" It seems rather silly to brush off scientific evidence by referring to it as "just an excuse." The Atheistic habbit...
My disbelief in God has nothing to do with the theory of the diversity of life. Please don't pretend evolution is some big atheist conspiracy.

[Yuikiko]

Please don't pretend evolution is some big atheist conspiracy.
Its not an atheistic conspiracy, its more of a Christian conspiracy, really. Scientists who studied evolution were not trying to destroy the world while studying evolution: they were just trying to learn more about us and animals. But fundamentalists/evangelicals hate the idea because they feel their bible is the only true source of all the answers, and therefore felt that they should control what we think and are currently trying to force religion onto us. The only bad thing evolution did was unleashed the dark side of christianity and amplified it even more, even though this is probably not the first time this has happened in the past.

Your argument is that evolution will destroy society is false. Believing in evolution will not cause you to shoot down people or bomb buildings or start war. In the same sense, believing in god will not also cause you to do the same thing. However, the people that do these things in the name of god are not influenced by theism, but the so-called pastors in these megachurches that claim they know god that use people in their church to gain undeserved political power. Inorder to keep their followers they want to get rid of other ideas, and evolution is just an idea (a theory). Once you trick them to ignore other ideas, you then have control over your new political puppets.

Now, about god. You cannot prove him, yet you cannot disprove him. In other words, we have no idea whether there is a god or not, and we need to stop its either one or the other. It is pretty much driving us apart.

[Yoh]

Amino acids require a certain tempature to be created, but that same environment will destroy them just as quickly. To remain in existance, their environment must change very quickly to maintain a different tempature. For microscopic structures, such travel is impossible in the time it takes to make and keep an amino acid. Even if a natural environment had the ability to do so, the proteins that would eventually be made from the amino acids rolling into a ball have no more power to build an organelle than a a pile of bricks have the power to build a factory or train station (both of which share identicle functions as certain organelles). The same must be said for cells and cities. All of these things strictly require blueprints. On a microscopic scale, these blueprints are called DNA. Our DNA is determined by fusing the DNA of our parents because DNA can not be made on its own. The idea that instructions to build a structure can be made on its own is preposterous. I also demand an explanation as to how mutations could possibly produce genetalia, especially with such perfect timing.

I don't think it is a complex enough matter to be called a conspiracy. I just find it odd that ever since Darwin stared at some animals, anybody who's tried to provide evidence or proof puts very little effort into actually showing work. They just say "hey, look that that!". Atleast Darwin himself was man enough to never called it anything more than a theory and even regretted writing those books by the time he died.

Religion can only destroy society if it or parts of it are written specifically for that purpose. Take the Quran, for instance. Real Muslims fallow the Old Testiment where Muhammud promotes peace. But then again, terrorists fallow the New Testiment which is just as much a part of the Quran as the Old Testiment. This is where terrorists get the idea that killing non-believers is Alah's will for them. Namely the U.S. and all its allies, because we are the big bad country of the West . Muhammud even safe-guards the possiblity that he might make contradictions by telling fallowers that later verses must be valued over the former. which I believe to be proof that Islam is a religion unworthy of our worship, because the messiah is so fickle.

[killshot]

Your first paragraph is just a lengthy version of the watchmaker argument. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that life is too complex to arise on its own and therefore must have been created. I will not even attempt to explain how life began in the first place since there are no scientific theories to explain the phenomenon. However, the basic structures that make up all organisms are relatively simple. Even structures that some scientists have claimed to be irreducibly complex can be broken down into simpler parts. I cite the flagella as an example of how a complex structure can be further reduced. The flagella (molecular propulsion system) contains over 40 proteins that all must function together for the flagella to work properly. However, each one of these proteins can perform its function independently of the others. What some claim to be too complex to have been created on its own is actually a system of simple proteins working together simultaneously.

To answer your question about genitalia, a method of reproduction is essential to the survival of a species. Any species born without genitalia or some other method of reproduction would not live past the first generation. Since our very existence depends on the ability to reproduce, the "timing" seems prefect. What you call "timing" is actually a prerequisite to existence. I just find it odd that ever since Darwin stared at some animals, anybody who's tried to provide evidence or proof puts very little effort into actually showing work.
Have you ever hear of a man named Alfred Russel Wallace? He came up with the theory of natural selection at about the same time Darwin did. Although the two men worked independently of one another, they both came to the same conclusion. The only reason Darwin is credited with the theory is because Wallace was afraid to have his theory published. Making the statement that no one has challenged Darwin's theories just shows an astounding level of ignorance on your part. The scientific community is all about poking holes in the work of other scientists. In order to show that a theory is accurate, many other scientists work to disprove or find flaws in the theory. To this day, Darwin's work is still relevant despite what creationists do to discredit him.

anything more than a theory...
I don't hear you complaining about the theory of gravity.Muhammud even safe-guards the possiblity that he might make contradictions by telling fallowers that later verses must be valued over the former.
The bible contains many more contradictions than the Quran. If you are going to apply logic to one religion then you might as well be reasonable about the others.

[Yoh]

Yes, there are scientific theories on Spontanious Generation. It just so happens they've all been proven wrong because they all suck.

Wow, your second paragraph essentially admits you can't say shit in defense.

Atleast gravity doesn't take millions of years to take into effect. In the end, what we preceive is the only final word in the world of Science. If we can't even make it happen, then a theory will be lucky to remain as such for long.

Your first assumption is that I am actually Christain. Once again, Mr. Atheist jumps to conclusions. Actually, I happen to be Christain, but I'm also open to suggestion that there are flaws in the Bible. Funny thing is, every single time someone makes this claim; they never EVER cite even one example. I find it really sad, to be honest.

[darkarcher]

Go easy on the flames or I'll have to temp-ban you. It doesn't matter if a person disagrees with you, or even if their argument is weak or not; please address their viewpoint with the courtesy with which you would want them to address yours.

[OverMind]

Yes, there are scientific theories on Spontanious Generation. It just so happens they've all been proven wrong because they all suck.
Assuming you are talking about classical theories of spontaneous generation from the 1800s, then you'd be correct. Not all current models have been proven wrong. That's why they are current. The Miller-Urey experiment, which replicated the conditions that were found in the primordial earth, showed that organic molecules can generate spontaneously. Which theories are you talking about? How have they been proven incorrect?Wow, your second paragraph essentially admits you can't say shit in defense.
From reading killshot's post, I didn't get the impression that he was "admitting" to anything. Perhaps, specifically, point out flaws in his argument.Atleast gravity doesn't take millions of years to take into effect. In the end, what we preceive is the only final word in the world of Science. If we can't even make it happen, then a theory will be lucky to remain as such for long.
This is a flawed argument, you are essentially likening two distinct scientific concepts in order to refute one of them. The fact that gravity does not "accumulate" over millions of years, while the effects of evolution do, does not disprove evolution. killshot was merely pointing out that claiming evolution is nothing "more than a theory" is a cop-out argument which would be silly to apply to other scientific theories, like gravity. Your first assumption is that I am actually Christain. Once again, Mr. Atheist jumps to conclusions. Actually, I happen to be Christain, but I'm also open to suggestion that there are flaws in the Bible.
You're telling me that killshot assumed you were Christian, and now you're berating him because he was correct? Funny thing is, every single time someone makes this claim; they never EVER cite even one example. I find it really sad, to be honest.
killshot, as a few examples, has cited DNA replication (Post#124), the evolution of giraffes (Post#124) as a classical example found in any Biology textbook (he forgot to mention how giraffes and acacia trees evolved in competition with each other with acacia trees developing thorns and giraffes developing prehensile tongues to combat such thorns but we'll let it slide ...), Charles Darwin's finches (Post#124), and retroviruses (Post#124). I find it sad that you've resorted to attacks on the individual, as opposed to valid attacks on said individual's arguments.

[killshot]

Well that certainly saves me a lot of time. Its not everyday someone posts my response for me. I guess this is what it feels like to finally have someone agree with me (or at least not oppose me.)

My wording in the second is a little confusing. What I am essentially saying is that if the "timing" had not been perfect, you would not be alive to ask that question. A rather weak statement I know, but I haven't done the proper research to make a more convincing argument.

I assumed you were a Christian because of the way you dismissed Islam as a legitimate religion. Up until that point I thought of you as an agnostic. Dismissing Islam on the basis of having a fickle prophet seems like the reasoning of a Christian to me. It tells me that you are open to the idea of religion, but only the one you were brought up to believe. This combined with your earlier statements lead me to the conclusion that you were indeed a Christian.

Since the current discussion was of a scientific nature, I did not feel the need to list biblical contradictions. However, if you insist I have no problem doing so.

"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever. " Jeremiah 3:12
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever." Jeremiah 17:4

"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized."
John 3:22
"Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." John 4:2

"With God all things are possible." Mathew 19:26, Mark 10:27
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." Judges 1:19

"Covet earnestly the best gifts." 1 Corinthians 12:31
"Thou shalt not covet. " Romans 13:9

"Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery." Mark 10:11
"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." Deuteronomy 24:1-2

I think that should suffice for now. The Bible is bound to contain flaws due to the large number of authors, but if the book was divinely inspired, then there should be more continuity in the core beliefs of the religion.

[JesusRocks]

I'd like to point out that your last comparison there is actually picked up on by Jesus when he says, in Matthew's Gospel, about it being written in the past that a man can give such a "bill of divorcement" to his wife, he then goes on to say "but I tell you..."

I don't have a Bible on me currently, so I don't know the exact quotes or references... But Jesus does mention that Moses gave this law because the people were stubborn and didn't want adultery to be the only grounds for divorce...

On the subject of "coveting", remember that the commandment about not "coveting" refers to earthly things... Paul's mention of coveting the best gifts speaks of aspiring to have spiritual gifts, the best of which he regarded as being prophecy... This kind of seeking for Spiritual gifts stems from an overarching desire to grow in our relationship with God which is a constructive desire as opposed to the commonly destructive desires associated with being envious of another's property...

Like I said I don't have a Bible on me at the moment, so I won't go into the other verses you have picked out at the moment... However I would like to point out that effectively what you have done is exactly what you have accused me of previously: "Cherry-picking verses". I would also like to draw your attention at this time to the fact that the first time you accused me of cherry picking a little while back, it was actually my attempt at throwing context into the verses which you yourself "cherry picked"... (i.e. quoting the verses which immediately surrounded the ones which you picked out)... So please, can we drop the "cherry picking" thing entirely, we both do it... and in fact it's not really cherry picking at all... it is the same type of referencing which is actually encouraged in the vast majority of academic subjects...

[Yoh]

The reason that arguement about perfect timing is so week is because it is under the assumption that there is no intelligence behind our developement. I would like to see you researching on the subject because I very much doubt there is any information on such an impossible annomoly. Mutative extra body parts never have a purpose of their own, and they certainly don't fit perfectly into the body like the female genetalia. I also recall a single mutation never involves two completely seperate structures. (groin/penis)

The thing is, Overmind, one does not congradulate a blind man for shooting a Ninja unless you are congradulating his luck. I had made no reference to my own religious alignment, therefore his apearently truthful stab at the Bible was potentially pointless. You yourself asume I am trying to prove against Evolution, when in fact with that statement I was merely proving against the factuality of it. Surely you know the Scientific Method? Technically, Gravity is perpetually in the last stage for all eternity, never to pass the final test. But Macro-Evolution barely even scratches that stage if at all. Also, I though we'd given up on Spontanious Generation. And your organic molecules isn't relavent. Carbon has over 5 million shapes on the molecular level and I'm pretty sure that comes before amino acids.

As for the examples, I have a dandy little theory about that. King James was weeding out tons of books, chapters, and verses that he deemed unworthy. I find it plausable that he simply didn't do the job well enough. Which would, of corse, depend on whether or not he also had devine inspiration. This is why I pay minimal attention to the Bible despite it being the word of my God. So I'll leave all the Bible-related debate to Mr. Painfully-Obvious Christain.

[killshot]

The reason that arguement about perfect timing is so week is because it is under the assumption that there is no intelligence behind our developement.
Why would you assume an intelligence is somehow involved? You yourself mentioned the scientific method. The way the method works is to start with known facts and derive conclusions based on these facts. If you assume life was created by an intelligent being, then you are starting with a conclusion (with no evidence to support it) and trying to determine facts based on a potentially faulty assumption. I would like to see you researching on the subject...
What's stopping you? If you're genuinely interested then do the research yourself. I am not going to waste my time looking up the information for someone who couldn't care less what the results may be.

Will you please stop pretending to be offended at my assumption you were Christian? I have already explained myself, and it wasn't very hard to guess. This is why I pay minimal attention to the Bible despite it being the word of my God.
Do you find nothing wrong with this? If you do not believe what is written in the Bible, then how can you claim to be a follower? If you have nothing to base your idea of God from, then isn't your God just a reflection of who you want him to be? I'm curious to know how you determine what to follow and what to ignore. The Bible contains some pretty vile passages in addition to its many contradictions. If your belief in God does not come from the Bible, then where does it come from?

Since I will no doubt be told to provide examples of the vile passages I mentioned, I will save you the trouble of asking.

"Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them." Jeremiah 11:11

Jesus speaking:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
Matthew 10:34,35

"And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy." Leviticus 26:25

Pretty much the whole book of Leviticus is filled with nasty things that will happen if you don't obey God. That doesn't sound very loving to me.

@ JesusRocks: I suppose cherry-picking isn't the correct word for this situation. Maybe I'm just a hypocrite. However, the Christian religion is composed entirely of the "good parts" of the Bible. I am just pointing out that the Bible contains much more evil than the average Christian is aware of.

[darkarcher]

As for the examples, I have a dandy little theory about that. King James was weeding out tons of books, chapters, and verses that he deemed unworthy. I find it plausable that he simply didn't do the job well enough. Which would, of corse, depend on whether or not he also had devine inspiration. This is why I pay minimal attention to the Bible despite it being the word of my God. So I'll leave all the Bible-related debate to Mr. Painfully-Obvious Christain.
If you're going to dismiss the Bible, please at least know the history of it. King James had nothing to do with what was in the Bible, it was merely named after him when it was first translated to English. The composition of the Bible as we know it today has existed since only a few centuries after Christ. However, that was merely the "official stamp" on what books were included. The texts that were in the Bible had already existed and been considered together since their creations. The later compilation was merely to ensure that nobody attempted to add anything else to it."Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them." Jeremiah 11:11
You're ignoring the fact that God is also considered holy, and punishes sin. In the context of this verse, Jeremiah refers to the covenant that the children of Israel had made to worship only God, yet they turned to idols time and time again. God continued to give them second chances until it became time that they had to take accountability for their own actions."Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
Matthew 10:34,35
Once again within context, Jesus is talking about what it takes to follow the Christian walk. He notes that if a person is not willing to give up their lives for Christ, then they are not worthy to be acknowledged. He then uses this verse to say that one's relationship with God is more important than even their relationship with their family."And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy." Leviticus 26:25
This is once again just referring the consequences of Israel's disobedience to their contract with God.

[OverMind]

The thing is, Overmind, one does not congradulate a blind man for shooting a Ninja unless you are congradulating his luck.
I hear this analogy a lot, and I can definitely see how it applies.I had made no reference to my own religious alignment, therefore his apearently truthful stab at the Bible was potentially pointless. You yourself asume I am trying to prove against Evolution, when in fact with that statement I was merely proving against the factuality of it.
For all you know, I could be a right-wing neo-conservative playing devil's advocate for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of you. Or, I was simply offering rebuttals to your arguments regardless of what you were trying to prove.Surely you know the Scientific Method? Technically, Gravity is perpetually in the last stage for all eternity, never to pass the final test. But Macro-Evolution barely even scratches that stage if at all.
Surely you read my post but failed to address my position that gravity and evolution are two distinct concepts from two completely different branches of science that have little to do with each other. Thus, showing that gravity works differently than evolution doesn't really prove anything, now does it?And your organic molecules isn't relavent. Carbon has over 5 million shapes on the molecular level and I'm pretty sure that comes before amino acids.
And how many, among the 5 million or so carbon molecules, are relevant? I was under the impression that amino acids, complex structures that form basic building blocks of life, would have a bit more importance, but I suppose I am wrong.

[JesusRocks]

Mr. Painfully-Obvious Christian
I'm assuming that here you are making reference to myself... considering my username...

[Tatterdemalion]

See, really getting into addressing the topic of this thread (which I don't think I've done yet on this thread) I think a lot of people go about approaching religion the wrong way. And it's a shame, because a lot ends up getting wasted over nothing when they do...but still, religion...

I mean, all in all what is religion? It's a way of life, embodied by specific practices and rituals rooted in a particular philosphy, generally of a spiritual nature, perhaps also providing ideas about other concepts, such as ethics, and the like. This philosophy is often centered around a belief in a particular diety, and is also generally illustrated in written texts.

You know, I know this is all really obvious, but it has to be said. Religion is a way of life, it's ideas concerning spirituality and the like and, moreover, the path and practices one chooses to follow in relation to one's own spirituality. Yep.

[OverMind]

Well, that's definitely an idealistic way of looking at it.

Practically, though, I find that many (not all, just many) people adhere to a watered-down, "cafeteria" version of their declared faith (e.g. see cafeteria Christianity). If you're not familiar with the term it refers to picking beliefs and ignoring others ( like picking items from a cafeteria). Christians, I find, have relegated themselves to merely believing in the existence of God and ... that's it ... I'm sure there are other parts of Christianity other than belief (which, don't get me wrong is important, but it's not the only thing). Apparently, If you live a sinful, non-Christian-like life, but believe in God, your chances of making it into heaven are equivalent to those of Mother Teresa!

If you claim to be a Christian, and the Bible states that homosexuality* is sinful/hateful/blasphemous (and it says it somewhere in there, explicitely, I'm sure) then engaging in such acts, or even supporting them, is not a Christian thing to do. There are no grey areas. In a Christian's eyes, it's wrong, that's it, end of discussion. There's no way to validate this as Christian-like activity without rejecting the Bible. Not just the passages that are anti-gay, but the whole Bible. If it's incorrect about homosexuality, then why is it correct about anything else. And, if you throw the Bible away, then what foundation are you basing your religion on? Jesus Christ? Like from the Bible, which you just threw away? You either accept your religion as a whole, or you become an atheist/agnostic/wiccan/etc.

* I'm not anti-gay, this point was made for argument's sake.

Is it ever a wonder that religion needs to be skewed to be relevant, then? It mentions a whole slew of arbitrary things that no one in their right mind would follow today (like slavery) unless you're living in the Middle-East. But, you either accept it all or you don't accept any of it.

[Tatterdemalion]

What you're saying is that traditional religious texts must be the exclusive source of authority in the context of religion, and that they must be interpreted as either absolute, indivisible and unchanging. To this, I have to say that's a pretty silly way of looking at it. First off, keep in mind that it's far more complicated than either "believing" in the Bible or not (I say the Bible because you used the Bible as an example). Keep in mind that the Bible is a pretty big collection of stories, poems and such, written over a pretty long period of time, and containing a great deal of content, ranging from philosophical and spiritual ideas to religious law, to mythology, to stuff that doesn't really mean much of anything (so-and-so begot so-and-so, who lived for such-and-such a number of years,that sort of thing). It's not really a matter of true and false, because what is of religious significance is the meaning of the text itself. The alternative, I suppose, would be a sort of biblical literalism, believing that everything written in the Bible consists of an absolute, irrefutable account of historical events, but I'd say that view is at best misguided.

As far as religious law specifically is concerned (which is only a portion of scriptural texts), such as that found in the Torah, keep in mind that this stuff was written over 3 thousand years ago, and as far as the little details go, was in many ways a product of its time. Since then, the world has changed, culture has changed, and attitudes have changed. Religion is not static, it is a social phenomenon, and as a result, as society continues to change and evolve, religion evolves as well. This isn't skewing religion, as the same core beliefs, values and philosophies continue to exist, all it is is that how these beliefs are applied, how they relate to people and peoples' lives, and the form in which they are practiced changes as the world changes.

If you want an analogy, try comparing it to the Constitution (I don't know if you live in the US, but it's the closest example I can think of). The Constitution is based on certain very strong political philosophy and ideas (liberty and democracy, for example), which are embodied in the political structure of the government, the Bill of Rights, and the like. Now, this is all well and good for when the Constitution was first ratified, but over a couple of hundred years the world changes, society changes, ideas evolve, new ideas introduced, and such. As a result, we have the ability to make certain changes/ammendments and to otherwise allow our political/legal system to develop to adapt to the changing world. This doesn't mean that we reject the Constitution, or the ideas on which the Constitution was based, but rather it is our attempt to better live up to the ideas of the Constitution and its framers in the context of the modern world.

Also, keep in mind that being of a particular religion is not necessarily the same as "believing" in a particular religious text. Keep in mind that a religious text is considered sacred because of the content, and the ideas expressed by it. It's not as though the ideas are sacred because they happen to be expressed by a text. I'd say that if you start treating the text as being sacred simply because it's a text, you'd be very backward indeed.

And overall it seems as though you're suggesting that being religious is synonymous with a strict adherance to every aspect of a religious text in its entirety, without any though given to context, relevance, meaning and significance, instead being sort of a dictatorial "do what I say" attitude. All I have to say to this is that this would be an extremely orthodox (or even worse, radically fundamentalist) interpretation of any religion, were it made from within the context of a religion.
















And I've said it before, and I'll say it again (at least I think I said it befre): Why is it just Christianity people talk about? What about the Hindus? There are around 900 million Hindus in the world, that's three times the population of the United States...is it just that nobody cares?

[OverMind]

I'll repeat: You either accept the Bible in its entirety, or you don't.
If you take the Bible as being flawed (e.g. in the sections ignored by today's modern, secular world) or fictitious (e.g. creationism) in certain respects, then why is it not flawed in its entirety? You don't pick-and-choose segments that are relevant to your current cultural context and reject the other parts.

You can't have the God part, without the rest, otherwise its not Christianity. It's just theism.

The Constitution, from what little I know about it, is not divinely-inspired. Unlike the Constitution, which can be amended, the Biblical text remains immutable. However, people are prone to choosing what parts of the Bible they will adhere to (thus, somewhat amending it to their lives). I don't think you can choose to adhere to only certain parts of the Constitution.

If you don't believe in the sacred text of your declared faith, then what are you basing your faith on? As I've mentioned before, by rejecting the text, you merely become theistic.

Hinduism is very complicated that, in the times I have brought it up in these forums, people have not known enough about it to argue properly for or against it. Christianity, on the other hand, is a simple (comparatively) which most people can relate to here. It's used as the de facto religion for argument. However, feel free to use Hinduism in arguments, I'll try to address them.

[Tatterdemalion]

If you don't believe in the sacred text of your declared faith, then what are you basing your faith on?
Rabbinical interpretation and scholarship? The ideas of philosophers and theologists throughout history? That sort of thing?

But again, you're missing the point. It's not as though believing in the teachings of a particular religion is synonymous with a literal intepretation of the text. Religious beliefs aren't dictated by text, rather the ideas expressed by the text form the core belief of the religion. So if a more liberal interpretation of particular texts, or a more modern approach to certain ritual and practices is still in keeping with the general beliefs, ideas, and meaning (not literal meaning necessarily, but philosophical, cultural and spiritual meaning), then it is still of that particular religion. And don't make the mistake of treating a religious text as the sole source of religious belief, because while the text may illustrate those beliefs, it is only one part of a much larger religious tradition.You don't pick-and-choose segments that are relevant to your current cultural context and reject the other parts.

Of course you do. What you're ignoring is that religion is cultural. When the Bible was written, it was culturally relevant. It was intended to be culturally relevant. If certain ideas and practices of a religion never change, and grow obscure over time, then what use are they? On a personal level religion is only significant so long as the individual cand find meaning and significance in it. If you force a religion to be dominated by traditions that never change, and are never reconsidered or re-evaluated, until they become obscure and irrelevant, then you are just creating a barrier between the individual and the main beliefs of a religion, which end up detracting from the general meaning of the religion rather than living up to it. Keep in mind that while the texts of a religion may remain the same (at least, they usually do), religion itself is a constantly evolving thing. Even if it involves sacred texts and the like, religion as a body of beliefs and practices is in many ways of the people, and will change with the people. Hinduism is very complicated that, in the times I have brought it up in these forums, people have not known enough about it to argue properly for or against it. Christianity, on the other hand, is a simple (comparatively) which most people can relate to here. It's used as the de facto religion for argument. However, feel free to use Hinduism in arguments, I'll try to address them.
And it's just that with the whole Hinduism thing, I just think it's a shame because when talking about religion, people tend to base a lot of their ideas on Christianity, when Christianity is not only markedly different from Judaism and Islam, but so vastly different from Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism that most arguments (why are we arguing?) made about Chistianity aren't even applicable to some or all of the others. (I've actually been talking about Judaism, if you haven't figured it out already)

[OverMind]

Rabbinical interpretation and scholarship? The ideas of philosophers and theologists throughout history? That sort of thing? But again, you're missing the point. It's not as though believing in the teachings of a particular religion is synonymous with a literal intepretation of the text. Religious beliefs aren't dictated by text, rather the ideas expressed by the text form the core belief of the religion.
Scholarship is nice but, as I've mentioned countless times before, it's all based off the original source, the holy book. And, there's only so many ways you can interpret explicit parts of a holy book condoning homosexuality (for example). There's no way to sugarcoat that all Western religions are, based on their holy books, anti-gay. Why are parts like this rejected by mainstream religion (see some sects of Protestantism) is all I am asking? And, why do we bash religions like Islam when, everything they do that seems counter-Western, is in-line with their holy book? The anti-gay ideas are pretty clearly outlined in all of these texts. But, suddenly, it's not cool to bash gays anymore so, we'll just sweep those parts under the rug and, by doing so, also sweep at least a millenium of "rabbinical interpretation and scholarship" which, not only agreed with these parts, but further justified them too.So if a more liberal interpretation of particular texts, or a more modern approach to certain ritual and practices is still in keeping with the general beliefs, ideas, and meaning (not literal meaning necessarily, but philosophical, cultural and spiritual meaning), then it is still of that particular religion. And don't make the mistake of treating a religious text as the sole source of religious belief, because while the text may illustrate those beliefs, it is only one part of a much larger religious tradition.
Goddamit, I'm talking about the parts of any holy book which are not subject to interpretation and are pretty clear as to what they mean. I'm talking about slavery, stoning people, anti-homosexuality, etc. Sure, you can interpret the creation story until the end of time, but there are parts of any holy book that are in so great a collision with modern, liberal ideals that there's no way to interpret them. Thus, they are rejected. Why? Why reject one part, but not the rest? That's all I'm saying.

Apparently, one's supposedly infallible religion doesn't make sense in today's culture so, rather than reject irrelevant text written thousands of years ago (and, *gasp* take away influential power from religious power bases), and become Atheist (like we should have done somewhere along the line) we'll just tweak it a bit and, hey, everyone's happy. The masses still have a mysterious, fictitious Father-like entity (Big Brother anyone?) to:

A. Complain about and to when bad shit happens.
B. Start wars over.
C. Ask for undeserving favours from only when it's convenient.
D. Attribute scientifically-explainable miracles.

And the traditional religious power bases and institutions still maintain unnecessary power over the people. Of course you do.
Are you telling me that I can selectively choose to only believe in the God part of the Bible (e.g. just merely believing that God exists) while rejecting the rest? And that I can still go to heaven because, despite breaking all the commandments several times (I rejected that part of the Bible, remember) and not repenting (I don't need to repent, I don't believe in it), I'm covered since the commandments weren't so popular in my particular culture and, thus, God understands?

I guess our all-knowing creator is very accomodating as long as you just believe in him.

I don't feel that religion is supposed to be fragmented in order to fit the person. No, the very opposite, religion intends for the person to fit it (It is to be taken as a whole, not in parts). Obviously, people find this very difficult and attempt to justify the former as still being in-line with whatever religion they've been born into. I'm just saying, if you find it difficult to adjust to philosophies written by the ancients, why try it all? Why not just reject it? Sure, modern society evolved from one that was devoted to it, but today's society does not need it. It's vestigial; a by-product of our evolution that we're just waiting to lose as society continues evolving into the future. Well, most of us anyway are hoping to lose it. Society won't collapse at all and, in fact, we're moving that way anyway (see secularism).

(I've actually been arguing from an Atheist perspective, if you haven't figured it out already)