Creation vs. Evolution

[Swift]

That and the whole lack of evidence problem... oh and the whole "it sounds made up" problem...

LOL, "God created the world" or "The world just came into being" They both sound the same.

Now when you say lack of evidence, you're refering specifically to the Diety of Jesus, correct?

 

[Danoff]

LOL, "God created the world" or "The world just came into being" They both sound the same.

Who said the second one?

 

[Swift]

Who said the second one?

Pretty much any/everyone that doesn't believe there is a God. The Big bang theory that's very popular in schools says that very thing.

One day, nothing. The next day, BOOM, "Houston, we have a universe!"

 

[Danoff]

Pretty much any/everyone that doesn't believe there is a God. The Big bang theory that's very popular in schools says that very thing.

One day, nothing. The next day, BOOM, "Houston, we have a universe!"

Not exactly. It says that at the beginning of time there was a ball of matter. How that got there? Dunno. What happened before? Dunno. What happened? We have observations that indicate that it exploded and can track the physics through to the formation of galaxies, solar systems, planets etc.

Do you not buy into the laws of physics? Because if you do, you should be on board with most of the big bang theory. It is what our observations point to afterall.

 

[Swift]

Not exactly. It says that at the beginning of time there was a ball of matter. How that got there? Dunno. What happened before? Dunno. What happened? We have observations that indicate that it exploded and can track the physics through to the formation of galaxies, solar systems, planets etc.

Do you not buy into the laws of physics? Because if you do, you should be on board with most of the big bang theory. It is what our observations point to afterall.

Actually, my fiancee took an astronomy class and they got pretty deep into the big bang. I gave her a hand as I'm better at science in general(go figure). Anyway, I read up on it and still leaves us right at the point of, where did nature come from.

 

[Pako]

Just goes to show that skeptics can live on both sides of the fence, eh? It's curious how that can happen.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, my fiancee took an astronomy class and they got pretty deep into the big bang. I gave her a hand as I'm better at science in general(go figure). Anyway, I read up on it and still leaves us right at the point of, where did nature come from.

Yes well luckily it doesn't leave us with this:

"The world just came into being"

Just goes to show that skeptics can live on both sides of the fence, eh? It's curious how that can happen.

Ah but the skeptics on one side aren't hypocritical, since they apply skepticism to both sides.

 

[Swift]

Ah but the skeptics on one side aren't hypocritical, since they apply skepticism to both sides.

Actually, I would say some skeptics aren't hypocritical. There are people that trust in evolution and also believe that Aliens started human civilization. There are people that trust in evolution and believe in astrology and psychics. It goes both ways.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, I would say some skeptics aren't hypocritical. There are people that trust in evolution and also believe that Aliens started human civilization. There are people that trust in evolution and believe in astrology and psychics. It goes both ways.

Ok how about this:

"The skeptics on one side aren't inherently hypocritical since they apply skepticism to both sides. Skeptical religious folks, however, are hypocrites."

 

[Swift]

Ok how about this:

"The skeptics on one side aren't inherently hypocritical since they apply skepticism to both sides. Skeptical religious folks, however, are hypocrites."

I'm skeptical of a lot of things in religion. Even my own religion. Basically all the things that you can't find in the bible but people practice. However, I do say that I go by the bible. So, if that's hypocritical, fine. But at least I'm consistantly hypocritical

 

[Pako]

What would be the motivation for the disciples of Christ to "Make up" the story of Christ as depicted in the books of the Gospel? What did they have to gain?

 

[Danoff]

I'm skeptical of a lot of things in religion. Even my own religion. Basically all the things that you can't find in the bible but people practice. However, I do say that I go by the bible. So, if that's hypocritical, fine. But at least I'm consistantly hypocritical

It's hypocritical to be skeptical of science but not of the contents of the bible.

What would be the motivation for the disciples of Christ to "Make up" the story of Christ as depicted in the books of the Gospel? What did they have to gain?

Do you believe in all other religious texts? If not, do you think the text of any other religion was made up? If so, ask yourself what the authors had to gain by making it up.

Sorry, that wasn't very nice of me. I do have a simple answer. Credibility. The authors wanted people to follow the teachings of Jesus (or whoever), and needed some credibility to be able to get people to follow those teachings. So they made up answers to questions people had about the nature of their reality, and they made up much of the story of Jesus himself. Why did they want people to follow the teachings? Who knows. Maybe they thought it would help people. Maybe, like all early medicine men, they wanted the power of mysticism over man's mind.

 

[Swift]

What would be the motivation for the disciples of Christ to "Make up" the story of Christ as depicted in the books of the Gospel? What did they have to gain?

Besides being burned at the stake, crucified upsidedown, having your head cut off and being put on an island prison. Not too much...

Of course, I know that people will say look at the money that churches bring in, blah, blah, blah. But Pako is talking about the early original church.

It's hypocritical to be skeptical of science but not of the contents of the bible.

Except of course for the fact that science of evolution keeps changing and the Bible stays the same for the past 4,000 years or so.

 

[Pako]

Besides being burned at the stake, crucified upsidedown, having your head cut off and being put on an island prison. Not too much...

Of course, I know that people will say look at the money that churches bring in, blah, blah, blah. But Pako is talking about the early original church.

Thanks Swift for answering my question with an actual answer. My point exactly. So we have physical evidence of the places and times of Christ. We have physical evidence of the main characters of Christ's time. And at looking at the logical motivation of the written gospels I conclude my belief in Christ to be true.

 

[Danoff]

Besides being burned at the stake, crucified upsidedown, having your head cut off and being put on an island prison. Not too much...

See above.

Except of course for the fact that science of evolution keeps changing and the Bible stays the same for the past 4,000 years or so.

On the one hand skepticism at work. On the otherhand, the lack thereof.

Thanks Swift for answering my question with an actual answer. My point exactly. So we have physical evidence of the places and times of Christ. We have physical evidence of the main characters of Christ's time. And at looking at the logical motivation of the written gospels I conclude my belief in Christ to be true.

Boogity Boogity!

What motivation did I have to say that? None. You have to believe it.

 

[Pako]

*snip*Boogity Boogity!

What motivation did I have to say that? None. You have to believe it.

Boogity, boogity? Please stop with the outlandish comparisons.

I know your intelligent enough to know the difference.

 

[Danoff]

Boogity, boogity? Please stop with the outlandish comparisons.

I know your intelligent enough to know the difference.

I know you're intelligent enough to realize that just because you can't figure out what the motivation for making up a story are, doesn't make it true. Besides that, you know for certain that some religious texts ARE made up - so you know there is a motivation even if you can't figure it out. Plus, you have my attempt at an explanation.

I do have a simple answer. Credibility. The authors wanted people to follow the teachings of Jesus (or whoever), and needed some credibility to be able to get people to follow those teachings. So they made up answers to questions people had about the nature of their reality, and they made up much of the story of Jesus himself. Why did they want people to follow the teachings? Who knows. Maybe they thought it would help people. Maybe, like all early medicine men, they wanted the power of mysticism over man's mind.

 

[Swift]

On the one hand skepticism at work. On the otherhand, the lack thereof.

I WAS very skeptical of the bible, then I had multiple people teach me about the bible and I grew to understand that it is true. How could you NOT be skeptical of the bible at first? You'd be stupid.

 

[Danoff]

I WAS very skeptical of the bible, then I had multiple people teach me about the bible and I grew to understand that it is true. How could you NOT be skeptical of the bible at first? You'd be stupid.

Let me ask you, what proof did you find that convinced you of the truthfulness of Christian Mythology?


Please don't say faith. Please don't say faith. Please don't say faith.

 

[Swift]

Let me ask you, what proof did you find that convinced you of the truthfulness of Christian Mythology?


Please don't say faith. Please don't say faith. Please don't say faith.

Actually, I'm convinced because history points to the messaih. The Torah(Jewish bible, or the first five books in the old testament), my personal experiences(baptisim, holy ghost), tongues and interpratation(I doubt you'd believe it if you saw it), healings are the principle reasons if you want to discount faight.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, I'm convinced because history points to the messaih.

To what specifically are you referring?

The Torah(Jewish bible, or the first five books in the old testament),

A bit circular don't you think?

my personal experiences(baptisim, holy ghost),

You mean your emotions?

tongues and interpratation(I doubt you'd believe it if you saw it),

sounds like a skeptic would have a hard time...

healings are the principle reasons if you want to discount faight.

Yes I want to discount faith, since it's not a form of validation. Give me an example of a particularly convincing "healing".

 

[Swift]

Yes I want to discount faith, since it's not a form of validation. Give me an example of a particularly convincing "healing".

Cancer, ovarian cyst from my fiancee. AIDS, a minister. Vision, healed on the basketball court. Cyst(or something) disappeared from an X-ray, twice.

 

[McLaren]

For once (or twice), I agree with danoff. I was just having this conv. with someone else.

I simply can't believe in the Bible. There's been so many changes, that rumour of King Louis XVI intervention with it, copies. Sometimes, I feel the creators do this as way to get people to follow what they think is right in life. To convert to their ways. To try and play god.

 

[Danoff]

Cancer, ovarian cyst from my fiancee. AIDS, a minister. Vision, healed on the basketball court. Cyst(or something) disappeared from an X-ray, twice.

So your fiancee had cancer and God healed it (no medicine)?

You've seen a minister cure AIDS? How do you know it was cured?

Why was a blind man playing basketball and who healed him?

 

[Swift]

So your fiancee had cancer and God healed it (no medicine)?

Yes

You've seen a minister cure AIDS? How do you know it was cured?

No a minister was diagnosed and cured.

Why was a blind man playing basketball and who healed him?

No, his vision suddenly became almost zero. No strikes or blows or anything.

 

[Danoff]

Yes

Why didn't she make the news? No surgery, no medicine, no therapy... I'd think people would be fascinated by her story. She should write a book, you'll be millionaires.

No a minister was diagnosed and cured.

Why didn't he make the news?

No, his vision suddenly became almost zero. No strikes or blows or anything.

That happens. A disruption of blood flow to the optic nerve can reduce vision. The return of that blood moments later can restore it.

 

[Swift]

Why didn't she make the news? No surgery, no medicine, no therapy... I'd think people would be fascinated by her story. She should write a book, you'll be millionaires.

Why didn't he make the news?

Because how many of those STUPID TV evangilists are out there saying they can "heal" you. People don't believe that kind of stuff anymore unless they are right there and happens to someone they know.

That happens. A disruption of blood flow to the optic nerve can reduce vision. The return of that blood moments later can restore it.

Can't argue with that.

 

[McLaren]

Because how many of those STUPID TV evangilists are out there saying they can "heal" you. People don't believe that kind of stuff anymore unless they are right there and happens to someone they know.

A few and they seem to be working, so it should work for her.
Obviously people do believe as well if they keep sending them money too, and believe they are "healed" by a touch on the head....

 

[Swift]

A few and they seem to be working, so it should work for her.
Obviously people do believe as well if they keep sending them money too, and believe they are "healed" by a touch on the head....

I don't trust those guys. Especially the ones that wear the white suits and don't say anything about faith, or salvation just "get healed" it's such a Santa Claus like mentality.

So Danoff, I can be skeptical of religious guys.

 

[Pako]

I don't trust those guys. Especially the ones that wear the white suits and don't say anything about faith, or salvation just "get healed" it's such a Santa Claus like mentality.

So Danoff, I can be skeptical of religious guys.

Sound pretty hypocritical there Swift!