Restoring My Beliefs

[GT4_Rule]

Actually Hell is in the middle southern part of Michigan, I've been there a few times actually . Ok sorry to stray.

 

[Keef]

Yeah Blazin, I forgot that Hell is, in fact, real. But you know what? Heaven is real, too. It seems to be near Bardstown, Kentucky. I don't see why people have to join a religion in order to get to either one; I mean, Automobile magazine just drove a new Audi Q7 between the two last month! They can't be that hard to find, though the Q7's nav system is so good it's like God designed it himself. So maybe you have to drive a Q7 to get there? I'll never know--I don't have $63,170 laying around, and I probably never will. Looks like I'll never get my virgins. Dammit!

 

[Sage]

You know how we look at Greek mythology and think “Ha ha, Zeus, Jupiter, Medusa… what a bunch of crock”?

I’ll bet anybody fifty bucks and my soul that a few thousand years from now, people will be saying the exact same thing about Christianity, and will have their own new religion.

 

[GT4_Rule]

We will be in the "Human Mythology"

 

[Touring Mars]

You know how we look at Greek mythology and think “Ha ha, Zeus, Jupiter, Medusa… what a bunch of crock”?

I’ll bet anybody fifty bucks and my soul that a few thousand years from now, people will be saying the exact same thing about Christianity, and will have their own new religion.

Good point... and whether there are many gods (as believed by the ancient Greeks) or just one (as in Christianity and Islam), they are basically just 'different names for the same thing'... the problem is, I don't think that any of them accurate represent what that thing actually is. Although most modern day Christians and Muslims believe that God (or Allah) has always existed, in actual fact they haven't, in quite a real sense. They have only really ever existed in the mind, and in the collective histories of cultures etc. for a few thousand years. In the context of geological time, this is but a mere blinking of the eye.

Of course, you could argue that God has existed long before man ever became aware of him. Indeed, I'd reckon this was by far the most common view point. But then the question is not what came before God, but what came before Man? Was is (as creationists believe) nothing? That Man and all species alive today were hand-crafted as described in Genesis and nothing came before (for which there is no evidence whatsoever)? Or, that the Earth has infact existed for billions of years, being inhabited by life long before man appeared on the scene (for which there is irrefutable evidence - if one cares to read it)?

The point is, Man's concept of God is just that... Man's concept. Whether or not we believe in God is up to us, but it won't change the fact of his existence or non-existence either way. We conveniently side-step the issue that our concept of God is shaped by our own frame of reference - the humanoid frame of reference - by turning the argument on it's head and saying that 'God created us in his image'... I strongly believe it's the other way around, that we have created God in our image - it's a uniquely human conceit that we believe that we are 'most God-like', and by default everything else that lives or that has ever lived on Earth is not (see sig!)...

 

[Joey D]

That's one of the points in this paper I wrote, Christianity, Islamic, Judeism, etc, will all be mythology.

 

[code_kev]

All you have to do is read the Bible to realise it's made up. I find it embarrassing that some people actually take it all literally in this modern day and age.

I think this sums it up quite well:
[quite norty, so don't watch it at work]
link removed by moderator - see explanation in post below

I implore those that are having a change of heart, thinking of giving Christianity a chance to be rational. This is 2006, not 1266.

..But I know some of you here tonight, are not true believers, and when you reach the Gates of Heaven, Jesus and God will reject you...

Screw this guy. Frankly, if heaven some how exists, I'd rather rot then spend eternity with asses like that. To the original poster, don't waste your time with more church goings, go read a book/ watch a film/ go for a drive etc etc. Do something worthwhile.

 

[Touring Mars]

However much I would urge people to watch the Penn & Teller episode that was linked to in the above post, I'm afraid we can't carry the link here, since I'm sure that this show is subject to the same copyright laws that prevent us from having all other kinds of links on site here, although suffice it to say it is easily findable by searching Google videos ... I would also add a couple more words of caution, it contains strong language and certainly doesn't hold back - the show basically tears the Bible to shreds, although not without justification.

That said, I enjoyed it, and made a specific note of the bit near the end when biblical scholar Dr. Paul Myer explains that one of the reasons for his belief in God and the Bible is due to the fact that when he looks around at nature, he cannot accept that there isn't a 'logic' behind the amazing complexity and diversity of creation. I can safely say this is a point of view shared by many. But I would like to ask him, if evolution is not a logical explanation, then what is it exactly? And how does the 'logic' of Genesis make more sense, or even begin to actually explain biodiversity, heredity, adaptation or complexity?

The episode also raised a good few points, not least about 'multiple messiahs', describing Monty Python's 'The Life Of Brian' as more accurate (in this respect) than Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of The Christ'...

John Cleese in 'The Life of Brian'

I say you are the messiah, and I should know, I've followed a few...

... citing the example of Apollonius of Tyana, a character whose life story (and picture!) bears a remarkable resemblance to that of Jesus Christ.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Good point... and whether there are many gods (as believed by the ancient Greeks) or just one (as in Christianity and Islam), they are basically just 'different names for the same thing'... the problem is, I don't think that any of them accurate represent what that thing actually is. Although most modern day Christians and Muslims believe that God (or Allah) has always existed, in actual fact they haven't, in quite a real sense. They have only really ever existed in the mind, and in the collective histories of cultures etc. for a few thousand years. In the context of geological time, this is but a mere blinking of the eye.

Of course, you could argue that God has existed long before man ever became aware of him. Indeed, I'd reckon this was by far the most common view point. But then the question is not what came before God, but what came before Man? Was is (as creationists believe) nothing? That Man and all species alive today were hand-crafted as described in Genesis and nothing came before (for which there is no evidence whatsoever)? Or, that the Earth has infact existed for billions of years, being inhabited by life long before man appeared on the scene (for which there is irrefutable evidence - if one cares to read it)?

The point is, Man's concept of God is just that... Man's concept. Whether or not we believe in God is up to us, but it won't change the fact of his existence or non-existence either way. We conveniently side-step the issue that our concept of God is shaped by our own frame of reference - the humanoid frame of reference - by turning the argument on it's head and saying that 'God created us in his image'... I strongly believe it's the other way around, that we have created God in our image - it's a uniquely human conceit that we believe that we are 'most God-like', and by default everything else that lives or that has ever lived on Earth is not (see sig!)...

I pretty much back that up 100%, brilliant post! expect to see another 30 rep points added to your total! 👍

 

[ledhed]

Mars man ...whats it say about life in general when Monty Python and penn & Teller make more sense than your average main stream media ?

 

[Touring Mars]

It means we would do well to listen to smart people like John Cleese, Penn Jillette and Michael Shermer who actually know what they're talking about rather than hacks who don't! ...and thanks Fryz 👍... it was a thought-provoking vid, and although it can't be linked to here, I recommend watching it (and 'The Life of Brian')

 

[Dave A]

Of course, you could argue that God has existed long before man ever became aware of him. Indeed, I'd reckon this was by far the most common view point. But then the question is not what came before God, but what came before Man? Was is (as creationists believe) nothing? That Man and all species alive today were hand-crafted as described in Genesis and nothing came before (for which there is no evidence whatsoever)? Or, that the Earth has infact existed for billions of years, being inhabited by life long before man appeared on the scene (for which there is irrefutable evidence - if one cares to read it)?

The argument here is that the earth existing millions of years before man, does not dissprove that God created it, nor does it disprove the Genesis account since the Bible often refers to a day in God's eye's being much longer periods of time than a literal day. It doesn't prove it either like, but it doesn't disprove it, you cannot disprove the existence of God, personally I think the bible has been far too accurate in many things, it was the first book to say the earth wasn't flat (and incase anyone is thinking of it, the original word used in Hebrew translated referred to a shape that appeared circular from any angle), many years before any scientists and theologists said so, it also described the water cycle, it also taught people about hygene again long, long before anyone understood why hygene was important. You can put all that down to other things, but on the other hand you can look at the bible as a whole, read it, get understandng of it and say, that's one heck of a book and be convinced. you can read it and think that's one heck of a book and not be convinced, but we all have freedom of action and thought, the freedom to do as we will.

Why is there a common gene among women that suggests all women are related, suggesting a single parent? The idea of evolution require's an immense belife in chance, for example you can argue that we all came from a single parent because only one set of creatures originally evolved into humans, but your relying on two creature's evolving into humans to both evolve at the same time, and in the same pace as each other. I'm not going to call evolutionists idiots in much the same way many people see the need to call people with religios beliefs but a lot of them don't fully understand Evolution and what's involved to make the theory work besides trhe gaps that keep the theory just a theory that no one has answered. But if you genuinely feel the bible is inspire by God and was given us to guide us, then you have all the proof you need to believe in God. If you don't believe the bible is inspired of God, then you won't believe it.

 

[Danoff]

personally I think the bible has been far too accurate in many things, it was the first book to say the earth wasn't flat (and incase anyone is thinking of it, the original word used in Hebrew translated referred to a shape that appeared circular from any angle),

Nonsense.

many years before any scientists and theologists said so, it also described the water cycle,

Nope.

it also taught people about hygene again long, long before anyone understood why hygene was important.

Cause and effect. People didn't understand why eating certain berries killed people, but they understood the effect.

Why is there a common gene among women that suggests all women are related, suggesting a single parent?

Commonalities in DNA does not suggest common parents, but rather, common species.

The idea of evolution require's an immense belife in chance, for example you can argue that we all came from a single parent because only one set of creatures originally evolved into humans, but your relying on two creature's evolving into humans to both evolve at the same time, and in the same pace as each other.

I don't think you understand evolution properly.

 

[Swift]

I don't think you understand evolution properly.

I do, and it STILL takes a great deal of faith/hope/belief to stand behind the idea that life came from noneliving elements. I know Famine hates it when I say that, but it's true.

I also don't understand the anologies to Greek and Egyptian Gods. Hebrews were around during the SAME time. But the other religions are dead and gone while Jeudiasm and it's natural offspring, Christianity are growing.

 

[Danoff]

I do, and it STILL takes a great deal of faith/hope/belief to believe that life came from noneliving elements.

It requires no faith/hope/or belief to understand that all of the evidence points to that origin.

 

[Dave A]

Nonsense.

Why?

Nope.

Yep, the bible mentions the water cycle early on.

Cause and effect. People didn't understand why eating certain berries killed people, but they understood the effect.

No, because hundereds of years later doctors will still using sweatty dirt scraped of peple as part of medicines, and people were still crapping in the middle of camp site's.

Commonalities in DNA does not suggest common parents, but rather, common species.

I''d have to go back and check that, I've read a lot to sugest we ultiamtely came from single woman.

I don't think you understand evolution properly.

There's not a single evolution theory, theres thousands of variations on it, so no, I don't understand them all, neither do you. I know that all the theories have holes in them, preventing them from being anything but theories, either way, the evolution theory relies heavilly on chance.

 

[code_kev]

LIVE4SPEED, I hate to be mean as you have never said anything terrible to me, but it's quite clear that you don't understand Evolution too well either. I'm gonna get mean now:

The argument here is that the earth existing millions of years before man, does not dissprove that God created it, nor does it disprove the Genesis account since the Bible often refers to a day in God's eye's being much longer periods of time than a literal day.

Weird how one minute the Bible is litteral, then it's not, then it is, then it isn't. Who decides? How can you ever be sure? You can't. I mean come on, when is a day not a day? When it's used to try and make old fashioned myths make sense...ridiculous.

It doesn't prove it either like, but it doesn't disprove it, you cannot disprove the existence of God, personally I think the bible has been far too accurate in many things, it was the first book to say the earth wasn't flat (and incase anyone is thinking of it, the original word used in Hebrew translated referred to a shape that appeared circular from any angle), many years before any scientists and theologists said so, it also described the water cycle, it also taught people about hygene again long, long before anyone understood why hygene was important.

Okay, fine. I can go with that. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Prove to me that there isn't a magic pink elephant dancing about your house, that you can't smell, touch, see of hear.

The Bible also advocates the stoning of Children and selling your daughters in to slavery. You CAN NOT pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow, this IS the infalible word of God afterall. If you follow the Genesis story as fact, then you have no problems with the whole stoning thing...right? Right?

You can put all that down to other things, but on the other hand you can look at the bible as a whoel, read it, get understandng of it and say, that's one heck of a book and be convinced. you can erad it and think that's one heck of a book and not be convinced, but we all have freedom of action and thought, the freedom to do as we will.

Well condsidering it contradicts it self every 5 minutes, it's obviously a poorly written book.

Why is there a common gene among women that suggests all women are related, suggesting a single parent? The idea of evolution require's an immense belife in chance, for example you can argue that we all came from a single parent because only one set of creatures originally evolved into humans, but your relying on two creature's evolving into humans to both evolve at the same time, and in the same pace as each other.

If your suggesting that Evolution, with it's peer reviewed theories (proper theories by educated rational men, not made up by crack pop religious nuts with PHDS from www.get_a_PHD_for_10_dollars.com) and it's MILLIONS of pieces of corroborating evidence, some how takes a bigger leap of faith then Creationism and it's myths (with ZERO evidence, oh wait the Bible...ahem, hardly a respected academic text), then there's obviously some piece of incredible Pro-Creationism evidence that I have yet to see. Or anyone else in the respected Scientific comminuty for that matter. Jump of bloody faith versus science.

Creationists are great at finding flaws in Evolution. Shame they don't step back and take a look at what they believe, myths with no evidence what so ever. That's a pretty big hole imo, when NO evidence exists.

As it's be said THOUSANDS of times before, the Bible isn't to be taking litterally, to do so just shows a lack of understand and quite frankly, common sense these days. As I said before, this is THE MODERN AGE, we have science, incredible technology, and so on and so forth, and yet people still buy this stuff...I guess it just sickens me.

So yeah, I'm pushy about my opinions, that's the way it goes. I'm sure you can present me with the solid evidence I need to see the light and realise that creationism isn't just made up.

And I'm sorry for the over use of caps.

 

[Swift]

It requires no faith/hope/or belief to understand that all of the evidence points to that origin.

The challenge with evidence of evolution as the origin of man is that it's not complete. No scientist on earth would say it is either.

The Bible also advocates the stoning of Children and selling your daughters in to slavery. You CAN NOT pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow, this IS the infalible word of God afterall.

This paragraph here shows you do not understand the bible. Just like you have to understand a good amount of science to read a scientific study.

Code Kev, do us ALL favor. Don't get mean, I say this for a few reasons.

1. Neither side(from a scientific standpoint) has an Iron-clad case.
2. When you're mean on purpose, nobody listens...on purpose
3. Unless you've fully studied both sides of an argument, you have NO room to talk down to the other side. And even then you shouldn't just out of respect.
4. Most people that hate to do something don't do it unless it's very needed. It is not needed for you to be intentionally mean to get your point across.

 

[Danoff]

Why?

Well, even though the egyptians figured out that the Earth was round, I don't buy that that little tidbit made it into bible. Quote the bible in hebrew, and show me which word it is that translates.

Yep, the bible mentions the water cycle early on.

Quote the bible for me there. I'd like the see the discussion of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation complete with an analysis of mass properties of water.

No, because hundereds of years later doctors will still using sweatty dirt scraped of peple as part of medicines, and people were still crapping in the middle of camp site's.

Quote the portions of the bible that promote good hygene and discuss the harmful bacteria being avoided.

I''d have to go back and check that, I've read a lot to sugest we ultiamtely came from single woman.

Nope.

There's not a single evolution theory, theres thousands of variations on it, so no, I don't understand them all, neither do you. I know that all the theories have holes in them, preventing them from being anything but theories, either way, the evolution theory relies heavilly on chance.

You don't understand what a theory is, and you don't understand evolution. If you did, you would know that your last sentence here makes no sense.

The challenge with evidence of evolution as the origin of man is that it's not complete. No scientist on earth would say it is either.

...and it never will be. That doesn't invalidate anything I said.

 

[Swift]

...and it never will be. That doesn't invalidate anything I said.

Ah, one of the few points at which we disagree. OK, so the evolutionary theory will never be complete so it's still completely valid? I'm going to need some serious scientific breakdown on that thought because honestly, it escapes me.

 

[code_kev]

Swift, when I said I was getting mean I meant it in jest. Either way, it's a forum, Liveforspeed is a big boy now and I'm sure he doesn't actually care what I say.

This paragraph here shows you do not understand the bible. Just like you have to understand a good amount of science to read a scientific study.

But it's the word of God, it's infalible. Science makes mistakes, a God can not.

1. 1. Neither side(from a scientific standpoint) has an Iron-clad case.

The difference is science doesn't pretend to. It uses evidence to construct the most likely theories. It doesn't NOT use stories, and pretend they are evidence ala Creationism. Creationism is faith based, I hate it when people try to use science to prove it. I mean it's funny, they always fail, everyone has a laugh, but it's just annoying.

2. When you're mean on purpose, nobody listens...on purpose

Sigh...read above.

3. Unless you've fully studied both sides of an argument, you have NO room to talk down to the other side. And even then you shouldn't just out of respect.

Firstly, no one here has studied both sides 100%, but I'm still allowed an opinion. Respect? I respect my Christian friends actually, but I don't respect Scientology. Why? Because it's made up. I don't respect things that are frankly ridiculous, why should I?

4. Most people that hate to do something don't do it unless it's very needed. It is not needed for you to be intentionally mean to get your point across.

What?

 

[Swift]

Swift, when I said I was getting mean I meant it in jest. Either way, it's a forum, Liveforspeed is a big boy now and I'm sure he doesn't actually care what I say.

Yeah, right.

But it's the word of God, it's infalible.

It certainly is. Would you care to show me the EXACT place in the bible where it says to stone your children and sell your daughters. I'm not doubting it's in there. I just want to see what you're talking about.

The difference is science doesn't pretend to. It uses evidence to construct the most likely theories. It doesn't NOT use stories, and pretend they are evidence ala Creationism. Creationism is faith based, I hate it when people try to use science to prove it. I mean it's funny, they always fail, everyone has a laugh, but it's just annoying.

Wonderful, you have theories and we have "stories" and for some reason that makes you more correct...interesting.

Sigh...read above.

I have and your general tone is always like this. I wonder if you bothered to think of the reason you get the reactions you usually do.

Firstly, no one here has studied both sides 100%, but I'm still allowed an opinion. Respect? I respect my Christian friends actually, but I don't respect Scientology. Why? Because it's made up. I don't respect things that are frankly ridiculous, why should I?

It's a physical impossibility to study everything/anything 100%. However, you can be well educacted and knowledgable about both sides of an argument(Famine, Duke, maybe even Danoff ). You obviously haven't the slightest clue about the bible so for you to just tear at it is laughable for me.

What?

Why apologize for being mean when you didn't have to be in the first place?

 

[Danoff]

Ah, one of the few points at which we disagree. OK, so the evolutionary theory will never be complete so it's still completely valid? I'm going to need some serious scientific breakdown on that thought because honestly, it escapes me.

It's a valid theory sure. Let me clarify here, the evidence supporting evolution will never be complete, but the theory is most definitely complete.

 

[Swift]

It's a valid theory sure. Let me clarify here, the evidence supporting evolution will never be complete, but the theory is most definitely complete.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the theory part of the means of the scientific process, not the end? Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny.

 

[Danoff]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the theory part of the means of the scientific process, not the end? Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny.

This might help a bit

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Theory is as good as it gets for evolution (and most of science). Almost nothing becomes law in science. And even laws (like Newton's laws) can get ammended to more correctly model nature (like relativity).

 

[Swift]

This might help a bit



Theory is as good as it gets for evolution (and most of science). Almost nothing becomes law in science. And even laws (like Newton's laws) can get ammended to more correctly model nature (like relativity).

Thanks for the explaination. The evolutionary theory is more clear to me now. Though I still don't buy it as the origin of species.

 

[Dave A]

Code don't worry, I'm a big boy , I do dissagree with you though, what you seem to have got from the Bible is very different from my understanding of it, having read it cover to cover many time's. You don't get any understanding of it reading part's of it, or even the whole thing once, that's where most of these idea's that the bible contradict's itself come from.

 

[Joey D]

As an Anthropolgy major I can say I see more evidence on how we evolved over that we were created. But one question I have is that do some religious people believe that God is the reason behind evolution? Just wondering. No prof has ever said anything about.

 

[Niels]

Why did God make humans this smart, just to follow the rules of the bible anyway?

Who says we have to follow the bible just as it is written now?

I'm sure if God exsists, a high chance would be that there is a deeper purpose in it the bible. If God is able to do everything he wants, he might want us to discuss the bible the way we do now, and use our own brains to discover the secret behind life. Why would you create living beings that are this smart, just to follow a bible? I just don't see the point.

 

[Swift]

Why did God make humans this smart, just to follow the rules of the bible anyway?

Who says we have to follow the bible just as it is written now?

I'm sure if God exsists, a high chance would be that there is a deeper purpose in it the bible. If God is able to do everything he wants, he might want us to discuss the bible the way we do now, and use our own brains to discover the secret behind life. Why would you create living beings that are this smart, just to follow a bible? I just don't see the point.

How smart are we...really? We still suffer from almost all of the same things they suffered from when the original texts. Sickness, famine, death...

I'm not saying we haven't used our intelligence to make our lives easier, but is the life situation that different from bible times?