Science

There was a time where science was non existant. Wild ideas were thrown around because it was all man had to rely on. There was a time when people didn't even know what the sun was... just that it was always there. There were times when man thought the world was flat, that we'd never fly.... and never even imagine we'd travel out into the black void of space.

Science has done a huge amount for mankind. It ranges from things like curing diseases to creating new animals from basic dna, (such as Dolly the sheep).

We witnessed the comets explosion on Jupiter from up close thanks to science, we can fly thanks to science, diseases such as smallpox have been eradicated completely thanks to science.

Women who can't give birth to children can now give birth to children thanks to science.

We can talk to friends and family on the other side of the world instantly thanks to science... Nowadays we can even see people on the other side of the world thanks to science.

Faulty human organs can be replaced, chopped off ears can be replaced- even hearts can be replaced. People without limbs can have new prosthetic limbs given to them.

Science has even given us pills to give you a stiffy if you can't manage it naturally! :D

Thanks to science we can now tell exactly when a volcano will errupt, an earthquake will start... we can tell when comets will return and solar eclipses will happen down to the exact minute.

Thanks to science we all have heat and light in our homes constantly.

Thanks to science rapists and murderers etc can be found through a single strand of hair, single fingerprint, single sample of dna.

Cloning has now begun and is progressing as we speak. Although that has its moral implications look at starving people and how food could be 'made' for them.

Thanks to science we can see even the smallest of lifeforms, know all about atoms, particles, neutrons and so on.

We can keep our food frozen to prevent rotting, can heat it up within minutes, can light instant fires...

We can create pictures, or videos of our loved ones to keep for the rest of our lives. Science has in essence given us the ability to freeze a moment forever and take it with us.

Science has given us everything. What i've put here are but the very basics of what science has accomplished..

Religion

Religion has been around for as long as we know. It has changed many many times. It is different depending on culture, upbringing, personal 'faith'. Each of these- from the oldest to the most modern believe they are right in their belief and the others are mistaken.

How many christians believe in the viking belief and Valhalla or vice versa?

The very principle of religion is to promote self righteous attitude. They will not state they're wrong, instead just assume the countless other beliefs are.

This attitude has created wars, death, destruction, arguments and so on from the beginning of time right up until present day.

It promotes a high mighty happy feeling for an individual but that is the main difference between science and religion. Science benefits all mankind- religion just benefits the individual in need. Religion then offers up it's most sincerest 'bad feeling' to anyone else who does not live according to their faith. They promote lack of human worth- passing it all over to god, they promote lack of accepting and understanding your own faults- you have a dead scapegoat to pass it all over to. They feel the need to ring on peoples doors, to pass out leaflets and magazines to spread their word to anyone regardless of whether they want to listen or not.

This is Science vs religion. Science has proven itself continually throughout history. Religion has stayed still and identical- just passing the self righteous attitude on from person to person.

Science progresses, science produces answers and results. Religion does not. It provides a 'quick fix' for those in need. It does not, and has failed since the dawn of mankind to produce anything of substance.

Doesn't mean it's wrong- just it should take a leaf out of the book of science. Perhaps then religion and belief in god can progress aswell.

I agree.
There shouldn't be any religion unless/until science discovers one.

I agree in the most part.

Isn't it funny however how some individuals seem to have religeon down to an exact science :rolleyes: :D

It's a battle between good and evil, not science and religion.


Science has given us everything. What i've put here are but the very basics of what science has accomplished..

Indeed, the very basics. Science has also produced things like gun powder, TNT, thermo-nuclear bombs, intercontinental missles, land mines, cluster bombs, VX, Sarin, mustard, phosgene and other types of nerve gases employable through mortars, missles and bombs.

diseases such as smallpox have been eradicated completely thanks to science

Science has produced enough ricin, botulinum toxin, smallpox and anthrax weapons to kill every man, woman and child ten times over. It has given the inherent ability for a few men to kill millions of other men by simply pushing a button on a submarine from somewhere out in the middle of the ocean.

The very principle of religion is to promote self righteous attitude. They will not state they're wrong, instead just assume the countless other beliefs are.

Please tell us which religious doctrine or religion's Holy Book states its principle is to promote self-righteousness? To the contrary, most religions require attributes such as self examination and humility.

This attitude has created wars, death, destruction, arguments and so on from the beginning of time right up until present day.

Evil isn't exclusive to religious regimes. Secular and atheistic regimes have caused all those things. Remember Joey Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot?

Science progresses, science produces answers and results. Religion does not. It provides a 'quick fix' for those in need. It does not, and has failed since the dawn of mankind to produce anything of substance

Religion and science both serve purposes. Ignore the good things religion has brought to mankind, ignore that the medieval Church established universities which preserved higher learning, ignore that religion nurtured theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, ignore contributions to the arts like those found in Sistine Chapel ceiling, ignore a Catholic monk named Mendel whose work was the basis for modern genetics. Ignore the fact that science itself has its origins in primitive religion and superstition (ie. alchemy preceeded chemistry, astrology was the original astronomy, primitive herbalism preceeded modern medicines, etc). Ignore the myriad number of hospitals all over the world that are connected to organized religion, names like Houston Methodist Hospital, Columbia Presbyterian, etc. and the fact that religious charities have eased suffering and poverty the world over.

With all due respect, the premise of your post is a pretentious piece of crap, sir.

Originally posted by Bridge
It's a battle between good and evil, not science and religion.

Science=good, Religion=evil. It is a battle between good and evil.

Originally posted by Bridge
Indeed, the very basics. Science has also produced things like gun powder, TNT, thermo-nuclear bombs, intercontinental missles, land mines, cluster bombs, VX, Sarin, mustard, phosgene and other types of nerve gases employable through mortars, missles and bombs.

Yes it has, under the scrutiny of governments that are controlled by religious people driven by self-righteousness (i.e. Bush)

Originally posted by Bridge
Science has produced enough ricin, botulinum toxin, smallpox and anthrax weapons to kill every man, woman and child ten times over. It has given the inherent ability for a few men to kill millions of other men by simply pushing a button on a submarine from somewhere out in the middle of the ocean.

Science creates means and men produce end results. Those men are usually crazy religious fanatics.
And if anything I would rather be killed by an atomic bomb than some guy with a club, I mean, at least it would be quicker,
thanks science!

Originally posted by Bridge
Please tell us which religious doctrine or religion's Holy Book states its principle is to promote self-righteousness? To the contrary, most religions require attributes such as self examination and humility.

Many religious people exert self-righteousness over other religions, and in doing so, exert the same adamant views over people and nations. Christianity is bad with this type of thing, at least certain sects are. Remember how many churches around the turn of the 19th century were vehemently anti-semitic (that includes American Christians).

Originally posted by Bridge
Evil isn't exclusive to religious regimes. Secular and atheistic regimes have caused all those things. Remember Joey Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot?

It isn't, but it is primarily associated with the church. The emergence of evil secular regimes is only a outcome of a modern world where religion is being left behind.

Originally posted by Bridge
Religion and science both serve purposes. Ignore the good things religion has brought to mankind, ignore that the medieval Church established universities which preserved higher learning, ignore that religion nurtured theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, ignore contributions to the arts like those found in Sistine Chapel ceiling, ignore a Catholic monk named Mendel whose work was the basis for modern genetics. Ignore the fact that science itself has its origins in primitive religion and superstition (ie. alchemy preceeded chemistry, astrology was the original astronomy, primitive herbalism preceeded modern medicines, etc). Ignore the myriad number of hospitals all over the world that are connected to organized religion, names like Houston Methodist Hospital, Columbia Presbyterian, etc. and the fact that religious charities have eased suffering and poverty the world over.

The world is much more grey than you are trying to make it, both you and Snakelord. Of course some religious movements and actions have been good, this world would suck if it was all holy crusades and church bombings. Science has got dirty hands also, but it has also given many better advancements to the well-being of mankind than Religion ever will.
Science at least is unprejudiced though, which certainly counts for something.

Originally posted by Bridge
With all due respect, the premise of your post is a pretentious piece of crap, sir.
Your alliteration is crap.

http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/pretentious

Science is more important than Religion. I mean, which would you rather have, alchemy, astrology, and herbalism, or contemporary science?

I like your claim of his arguments being crap, way to go, you just made my favorite person list.

ZERO MASS

It's Good vs. Evil
It's a battle between good and evil, not science and religion.

Everything's a battle heh? That's obviously the difference between us. I consider advancement of knowledge and furthering human understanding as an achievement. I look upon that happily. You sit there and consider life an eternal battle you must win against the enemy?? Sickening. Like i said- science serves all mankind. You're right, others are wrong so you must spend a life in battle with them... That doesn't help anything except to feed your own self righteousness. That's why i said take a leaf out of the book of science. Did you even read my post?

There are no battles- surely we're here to help each other, not fight each other? Surprises me hearing you say that considering it's apparently the religious masses who are the kind hearted, all loving group of people.

Indeed, the very basics. Science has also produced things like gun powder, TNT, thermo-nuclear bombs, intercontinental missles, land mines, cluster bombs, VX, Sarin, mustard, phosgene and other types of nerve gases employable through mortars, missles and bombs.

Yeah.. science provided all that for the religious folk. :D As bad as all those are it does show how science advances all the time. Science doesn't sit still as religion does promoting its own self worth against others. Science finds the answers, no matter how horrible they might seem. Either way- bombs or no bombs- people would still be killing each other. A nuclear weapon is just mans equivalent of some of the more inappropriate acts of god.

Science has produced enough ricin, botulinum toxin, smallpox and anthrax weapons to kill every man, woman and child ten times over. It has given the inherent ability for a few men to kill millions of other men by simply pushing a button on a submarine from somewhere out in the middle of the ocean.

Yes it has. Science has it's bad side aswell. But to be honest is it that bad a thing? At least science doesn't allow only certain people into their afterlife, preventing anyone other than christians from getting there.

Some people will try to find answers for different questions. One man sits down and creates all these nasty weapons you have listed. At the same time another man sits down and develops something to stop them or counteract them. Science provides answers to all sides- it doesn't just accept one answer, end of.

Please tell us which religious doctrine or religion's Holy Book states its principle is to promote self-righteousness?

All of them. Not that they need to- you'd pretty much end up like that anyway regardless. Remember your belief is unsubstantiated and unproven. Instead of accepting that and attempting to prove it as true you just state it is and deny other people's beliefs. Tell me do you consider the possibility that the hindus are correct in their belief and you are wrong? Most don't see it that way, (which you'll notice if you read this forum a lot). I've even noticed you lot bickering amongst yourselves. Many times i have seen comments like: "He's not a real christian because yada yada etc etc..... There's very few of us real christians". You all believe and state:

most religions require attributes such as self examination and humility.

Yet in practice you all do completely the opposite without even realising it. Sure there may very well be a god, or gods, or giant pink solar elephants but you lot do nothing but ponce about with your bits of text making him look worse than he probably would if you didn't say anything. I understand mans need to have a god but do you really have to push it on everyone else. You claim love, honour, humility yakety yak. It's easy to claim a million and one good points. You lot never dwell on the bad points- rudeness, self righteousness, impatience etc. For all of those bad points you have a scapegoat, (jesus), so why ever dwell over them? As such how can you improve as a person unless you accept blame for those bad points. Of course on the other hand you're all too quick to point out someone elses faults and tell them to beg to jesus or goto hell.

Evil isn't exclusive to religious regimes. Secular and atheistic regimes have caused all those things. Remember Joey Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot?

I never said it was exclusive, but it's a key factor. Aside from all out religious conflict it usually comes down to a singular belief of such undeniable nature to that person that they'd never listen to anyone who disagreed, no matter what the reasons. Most of us sit here and look upon them to be lunatics. They would never understand the problems with their own belief and never study the alternatives before making their leaps of faith.

Religion and science both serve purposes.

I already said that. Science serves all mankind, religion serves a destined handful of lucky people who are smart enough to see the light.

Ignore the good things religion has brought to mankind, ignore that the medieval Church established universities which preserved higher learning, ignore that religion nurtured theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, ignore contributions to the arts like those found in Sistine Chapel ceiling, ignore a Catholic monk named Mendel whose work was the basis for modern genetics.

Ignore the good things everyone other than christians and catholics has brought to mankind... Ah well, we're both guilty.

You will find schools were first established by the Sumerians. Churches went one step further and made a university: a place that doesn't accept the commoners just a select few lucky people. However it was still science that gave people something to learn in university other than "God said...." It's hardly a benefit to all mankind.

ignore that religion nurtured theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas

What's that got to do with all mankind? Not a whole hell of a lot.

ignore contributions to the arts like those found in Sistine Chapel ceiling

Art works fine without religion. Ok, less naked women and angels peering and childrens testicles but im sure art would do fine without religion. Either way do not forget it was one mans ability that created those 'masterpieces'- nothing to do with religion. If most christians around here had their way they'd tell me it wasn't that mans ability it was god working through him. As such he hasn't provided diddly-squat- god has.

ignore a Catholic monk named Mendel whose work was the basis for modern genetics.

Ok.... Why don't we sit down and find out the religion of every person on the planet who has contributed to mankind? Pointless i'd say- yes many might have been christian, catholic, jewish etc but that's not religion providing genetics- that's science.

Ignore the fact that science itself has its origins in primitive religion and superstition (ie. alchemy preceeded chemistry, astrology was the original astronomy, primitive herbalism preceeded modern medicines, etc).

I'm well aware of that... and what made it progress? What bought it forward? Science- not religion. Religion sits on it's ass and starts to smell- science looks for answers and achieves on a daily basis.

Ignore the myriad number of hospitals all over the world that are connected to organized religion, names like Houston Methodist Hospital, Columbia Presbyterian, etc.

Ignore the myriad of hospitals all over the world named after presidents, towns, and whatever else you can think of. I'd hardly consider a hospitals name as benefit to all mankind. It is the science that puts everything in that hospital and saves the lives. That is benefit. All you have is "My church named your hospital"? Lol.

and the fact that religious charities have eased suffering and poverty the world over.

You trust charities? Lol! Ok so they get money for free off the generosity of the public then hand about 20% of it to the starving millions. The other 80% they 'lose' in administration. Same works with non religious charities too.

I wonder through all their acts of helping mankind your priests, vicars, rabbis etc earn. My wifes father sold his house for over £500,000....... It was bought by a vicar. Go figure. All that money to spend on a house... wonder how much he gives to help the starving millions. (Btw the average yearly salary in London is £16,000. Nurses who save peoples lives only earn about £17,000 annually which would allow them to buy a house valued at £70,000).

Science works for mankind- religion works for itself.

With all due respect, the premise of your post is a pretentious piece of crap, sir.

With all due respect but you sound a tad upset. Sit down, relax, have a cigarette and smile. It will make you live longer. But i can only expect that kind of attitude from you 'loving, humble, non-self righteous people'.

I will make a few brief clarifications.

The difference between us is that you look at science and religion as the combatants. You dismiss the contributions made by religion and proclaim science the winner. Actually neither one is the winner. I see the struggle not as a physical battle between science and religion but between mankind struggling within itself with all its potential goodness and an internal sense of justice, clashing with its inclination towards evil.

Science has done wonderous things, but anyone who dismisses the value of religion is missing the big picture. I cannot excercise just my mind and my body, I need to exercize my spirit as well. It is said that we do not get ulcers from what we eat but from what eats us. I would recommend you read CS Lewis. Lewis discusses the natural moral law found in all men. He makes a very good case that this natural understanding of right and wrong is a clue as to the nature of the universe and its Creator.

That's about it. We now return you to your regularly scheduled reply filled with disdain for anyone who would dare think theology is useful.

Are we arguing over what these things have done, or what they are supposed to do?
Science - One way to understand the world, improve it
Religion - One way to understand the world, improve it
Arguing as though one is evil is stupid. Of course bad things have happened because of each, and we could go on forever naming them, but are our reasons for beleiving in them the same as those who have really f$cked up in the past? No!
I beleive in science because it allows us to improve the quality of life, and understand how its many rules work.
I beleive in religion, because it gives us a reason to better ourselfs, and a greater plan to be a part of.

Neither idea is evil. So please, stop fighting over nothing.
Science is Science, and Religion is Religion.
You either beleive in something or you don't.

And by the way, was I coherent? I'm really having trouble getting my thoughts together, as always, so If you could review my input, that would be great.:)

The difference between us is that you look at science and religion as the combatants

Hey, don't try and turn this on me you're the one talking about battles. I merely said i think religion should take a leaf out of the book of science. If you read my posts you'd see why i referred to science and religion as i did.

I'll put it in short format:

Science tends not to condemn, but to continually offer things to mankind. It never stops, it never ends. Day in, day out science is progressing and giving all of us a better life. Yes, there are bad sides such as vx gas warheads and whatever else you mentioned but as i stated the nicer side of science is already working out a defence against them.

Religion tends to condemn most of the time. The goal for many christians and other religions is to 'recruit' people into their belief system. A lot of this is done through fear- the "believe in god or goto hell" scenario instantly springs to mind. God himself has laid down distinct and strict rules governing who gets eternal life and who doesn't. Those in the bible who went against god were dealt with swiftly and violently, not only by the hand of man, but also by the hand of god. Sure it has its good sides- sunday meetings, barbecues, hymn singing and so on but the core of religion is to promote fear among the masses. I bet you for one wouldnt even dare say: "there is no god" for a laugh, you probably couldn't even bring yourself to think it. Fear holds so many religious people captive. Fear is what drives so many people into religion in the first place.

Now perhaps you understand why i said religion should take a leaf out of the book of science? For religion to be better in my opinion there shouldn't even be word of hell ever mentioned. There should be no rules to get eternal salvation. Instead try promoting the 'love and harmony' you lot claim to do so much. If you turned round and said "Hey we're all going to heaven no matter what anyone believes, no matter what god you believe in etc etc" There'd be a lot more happy people in the world.

You dismiss the contributions made by religion and proclaim science the winner.

I didn't claim anything the winner. I've stated now 4 or 5 times what i was talking about. If you still fail to understand i'll start drawing pictures for you.

I see the struggle not as a physical battle between science and religion but between mankind struggling within itself with all its potential goodness and an internal sense of justice, clashing with its inclination towards evil.

Kind of like a tamed animal. You can love it, feed it, keep it happy forever but one day it's 'call of the wild' comes and it chews you up. We have that call of the wild within us too. There was a time we lived free out in the wilderness. We had to chase and spear our food, we had to survive day by day on what we could catch, kill, find, forage etc etc. Nowadays life is packaged in a bag of plastic and dropped on our doorstep. It makes life easy but there's a little voice inside all of us that yearns for the wild freedom once more. That's why camping trips are so successful. It's even a key factor with people who like hunting, canoing, absailing, rolling in the mud, hell you name it. You guys put on your sunday best in order to prove you are civilised and no longer have that call of the wild, but it is within you no matter how much you'd deny it. You read an old book attempting to prove you are a man instead of the beast that lurks within. All that is fine by choice- however where is the choice when rules have been set? Specific 'do as i say or no eternal salvation' rules.

but anyone who dismisses the value of religion is missing the big picture.

Sure, it has value. All i said was it should take a leaf from the book of science. As i explained above several times. It's about helping ALL mankind vs a select few.

It is said that we do not get ulcers from what we eat but from what eats us.

It is said Rennie tablets remove ulcers.

I would recommend you read CS Lewis.

The lion, the witch, and the wardrobe was brilliant.

That's about it. We now return you to your regularly scheduled reply filled with disdain for anyone who would dare think theology is useful.

Your ending lines are always filled with malice. Why is that? More of that loving harmonious religious side coming to the front? Or the 'call of the wild'? Either way i hereby submit my response. If you read it thoroughly you'll see the only suggestion i have given and problem that i have is the way religion 'works'. I think it could be changed slightly to include all of mankind instead of a select few. Was just an opinion- you really need to chill out.

P.S I decided to say this one more time in the hope you'll finally get the message. I said the following line in the very first post of this thread:

Doesn't mean it's wrong- just it should take a leaf out of the book of science. Perhaps then religion and belief in god can progress aswell.

i swear by science. it's done amazing things for humanity.
but i'm religious as well.

religion gives people faith......extraordinary faith....and extraordinary power.....something science can never give.

don't hit back with "what about missiles and guns etc."

i'm talking about conviction and faith to fight personal battles.

"religion is the opium of the epople"-- Karl Marx.

More people have been killed in the name of religion than have ever been killed in the name of science. Just once I'd like to see, painted somewhere, Jesus hates grafiti.:D

Originally posted by SnakeLord
There was a time where science was non existant. Wild ideas were thrown around because it was all man had to rely on. There was a time when people didn't even...............
Good!
Get that shit off your chest, and maybe you will answer a question.

Now you are obviously not talking about "a" religion, but "religion", if you get my drift. My question is;

What, exactly is it, you hate about "God" and "religion"?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Bridge
It's a battle between good and evil, not science and religion.

The big problem with attempting to pit 'good vs. evil' is that each implies a presumption. What is good? What is evil? Blah blah I'm sure you've heard it all before, but I gaurentee those fucks who took down the trade centers believed without a shadow of doubt (obviously since they were willing to sacrifice their very beings for it) that they were "good". I'd call them evil, but that's just my perspective. The problem with most religions in my opinion (in terms of the argument at hand) is that they believe in moral objectivity, which is a myth. If you aren't a moral relativist, IMO you are as bad as those fucks who took down the towers. You may not have behaved as badly, but certainly the potential to do so is there, since your morals are set in stone by a "higher authority" (someone's interpretation of some stupid book).

*shrug*

Just a thought.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Good!
Get that shit off your chest, and maybe you will answer a question.

Now you are obviously not talking about "a" religion, but "religion", if you get my drift. My question is;

What, exactly is it, you hate about "God" and "religion"?

Love

Jan Ardena.

I don't hate God, and I don't hate religion. Many people find comfort in it and anything that helps you make it through the day, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, is just great as far as I'm concerned. What I do disaprove of is organized religion. In too many instances you have people with no faith themselves, leading other people down the wrong road just for the glory or the money. I personally believe that each one of us is a tiny piece of God here on earth. I don't believe that some jackass in religious attire should be paid to tell you what is right and wrong, or to pray for your soul. I also truely believe that no one on earth can or ever could forgive you for your sins. That takes a much higher order of power than any mortal posesses.
Much love and long life to you,

reverand bill

Originally posted by airavata
i swear by science. it's done amazing things for humanity.
but i'm religious as well.

Sorry for you. Religion = Delusion. I suppose if you're happy being deluded then I'm happy for you. Just don't argue from a perspective that asserts that your religious beliefs have any bearing on reality and I'd say "More power to you."
Originally posted by airavata

religion gives people faith......extraordinary faith....and extraordinary power.....something science can never give.

*sniffs around*

I smell bullshit. I don't think religion "gives" anyone faith, people have to muster faith in the bullshit to believe it. Now if you think that people can be incredibly empowered from a delusionary mindset, I'm totally with you. But religion doesn't get the credit for the faith or "power" as you put it. People do. Religion is just a cab ride to fairy land. I'm not disputing that religion has been imperative to the development of humanity, I'm just saying that finally, the need for it on a grandios scale has subsided. Sadly, it gained such momentum (I believe the description of a meme is appropriate) that though it is basically pointless if you have the intellect at this point, but its beat goes on.

Your parents likely indoctrinated you. Maybe you were "looking for answers" and bullshit satiated your desire. Eh, I don't feel like going any deeper with that thought. Think about how a mental virus would spread and boom, religion seems to fit the model.
Originally posted by airavata

don't hit back with "what about missiles and guns etc."

Okay.
Originally posted by airavata

i'm talking about conviction and faith to fight personal battles.

Hehe, battles based on moral objectivity and religious bullshit or like street fights? Oh, you mean the strength to survive cancer and that kind of shit? Well, it does that for some people sure, but that's a whole other thread isn't it? For instance, if I was a christian and got cancer, shouldn't I be pleased that "god is calling me home'? Would I then fight the battle to let the cancer run its course so I could be closer to god in heaven sooner? While this example isn't perfect, I'd hope you could wrap your brain around my point. If you're religious.. you're steeped in some serious bullshit though, so I have to doubt you can.
Originally posted by airavata

"religion is the opium of the people"-- Karl Marx.

You quote that like it's a good thing. I really don't think it is. Marx certainly didn't. Socialist bastard that he was. :)

What, exactly is it, you hate about "God" and "religion"?

I dont hate anything, it's not my style.... well i do hate coffee flavoured chocolate but aside from that i'm not a hating kind of person.

However to fully answer your question you must see it from 'outside' your own field of view, your own line of sight or you'd never understand and never agree.

When people find a new girlfriend/boyfriend they often end up neglecting their friends and stuff like that. They would never realise how they are- no matter who told them how it actually was.

It works in the same way here.

There's nothing to say their having a girlfriend is wrong- it's just the way in which they conduct themselves to others.

I've explained now 6 times or so the reason of this post and did promise to draw pictures if i needed to, however i can;t draw to well so im gonna attempt a final final time.....

Science works for everyone- it serves mankind. Religion on the other hand serves a select few or 'those lucky enough to find the truth'.

You can even see it in the bible: God himself picks select people, (Abraham, Moses, Noah etc), and looks after them. The rest of mankind he drowns, destroys their homes and villages etc.

Medicine will save a tramp, a rich man, a mass murderer. It is not biased- it saves everyone regardless.

To the religious institutions is is a 'battle of good vs evil'. Those of us who have not seen the light are the evil. We're the sinners, we're the ones who will not get eternal life unless we find and love god/jesus.

So again i simply state i think religion should take a leaf from the book of science. It should serve all mankind, not just the lucky few. We shouldn't be branded as sinners, regarded as evil or whatever else simply because we require more in life than the average easily pleased human being.

Well, let's see if I can give you an arguement that won't make you restate your point. Let's see if I understand it...

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Science works for everyone- it serves mankind. Religion on the other hand serves a select few or 'those lucky enough to find the truth'.

You can even see it in the bible: God himself picks select people, (Abraham, Moses, Noah etc), and looks after them. The rest of mankind he drowns, destroys their homes and villages etc.

Medicine will save a tramp, a rich man, a mass murderer. It is not biased- it saves everyone regardless.


I disagree. Science may have the capacity to be serve all and be unbiased, but so too does religion. You yourself state that in the end of this post, as I'll get to later.

In your example of medicine, you imply that "a tramp, a rich man, a mass murderer" all actually have equal opportunities. This is just not true. A "tramp" might not be able to afford to go to the best doctors to receive the best treatment, thereby not being saved by science. But, disregarding this point, and pretending that statement has no fallacies, you go on to imply that religion is a biased institution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the point of having free will, is to be able to make one's own decisions. That said, does not everyone have the same opportunity to "accept God," or whatever sort of religious faith. We as human beings, assuming your example is true, all have the same basic capacities. Therefore, it is our own free will that decides whether or not we consider ourselves to be of a particular religious belief.

So, you are either wrong about science or wrong about religion. I'll let you pick whichever you'd prefer.

Originally posted by Snakelord
So again i simply state i think religion should take a leaf from the book of science. It should serve all mankind, not just the lucky few. We shouldn't be branded as sinners, regarded as evil or whatever else simply because we require more in life than the average easily pleased human being.

First of all, I don't approve of the implications of your last sentence. It makes you out to be a hypocrite, since you disapprove of religions for making snap, as you claim, incorrect judgement, then make one of your own.

Secondly, you make a very generalized statement here, which is never a good policy for any argument. You are saying that those of us who claim to have religion automatically outcast those who don't. This weakens your point, since it again makes you come off as a hypocrite.

And Finally, your last sentence does serve some purpose in your post: it proves your opponent's point! Or at the very least, my point. You're statement that "we require more in life..." shows that you do have access to some religion, and you've chosen not to accept it. How is that any different than, to continue your medical analogy, someone who choses, knowing that medicine could keep them alive, to be a DNR patient? There were resources available and they chose to ignore it. So your point about religion being totally biased is a fallacy. In fact, it is the people who profess it, or don't, who are biased. But this does not mean that science is any less so, since it too is controlled by, in many cases, the same human beings.

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Sure it has its good sides- sunday meetings, barbecues, hymn singing and so on but the core of religion is to promote fear among the masses.No, no, no. :shudder: Whomever is responsible for those horrific hymns (at least most the ones sung in the services I've been to) is certainly being raked over the coals in Hell by the Devil himself (where they most certainly pipe in Musak versions of those very same hymns). If you wish to point out a good side of religious music I suggest Bach.

~Raithere

In your example of medicine, you imply that "a tramp, a rich man, a mass murderer" all actually have equal opportunities. This is just not true. A "tramp" might not be able to afford to go to the best doctors to receive the best treatment, thereby not being saved by science.

Well in my country people get saved for free regardless of their financial position or otherwise. Unlike America and certain other places we do not pay for medical treatment, we do not need insurance or anything like that. Many people look down on my little country- but at least we look after our own regardless of their 'lot' in life.

Ok you said diesregard it but i thought i'd point it out anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the point of having free will, is to be able to make one's own decisions. That said, does not everyone have the same opportunity to "accept God," or whatever sort of religious faith. We as human beings, assuming your example is true, all have the same basic capacities. Therefore, it is our own free will that decides whether or not we consider ourselves to be of a particular religious belief.

You guys love going out of context. This has nothing to do with free will.

Let's assume for a second it does....

You have free will to believe leprechauns exist. Why don't you?

Answer that question and we'll work from your response.

We could also mention many people do not have free will to choose god/jesus depending on culture, upbringing etc etc, but for now i'd just like to see your answer.

So, you are either wrong about science or wrong about religion. I'll let you pick whichever you'd prefer.

I'm not neccesarily wrong about either, you jump to conclusions too hastily.

First of all, I don't approve of the implications of your last sentence. It makes you out to be a hypocrite, since you disapprove of religions for making snap, as you claim, incorrect judgement, then make one of your own.

I really couldn't care if my sentences got your personal approvals or not, you're not my boss.

You have faith in a big invisible being. end of.

We can all also have faith in a big invisible being but we require more, we require proof.

My statement still stands- your certificate of approval given or not.

I can understand the quick jump to defence of what i said- but it doesn't make me a hypocrite. I give everything the benefit of 'might be, might not'. That's the fairest position to be in.

I might be able to fly, i might not- i don't just jump off a cliff. I require proof before jumping. The religious man just jumps.

Secondly, you make a very generalized statement here, which is never a good policy for any argument. You are saying that those of us who claim to have religion automatically outcast those who don't. This weakens your point, since it again makes you come off as a hypocrite.

It doesn't weaken anything if you take the time to read it. Of course you'd have to see it from this side of the bridge to understand it.

And Finally, your last sentence does serve some purpose in your post: it proves your opponent's point! Or at the very least, my point.

O....k, let's see...

[/quote]shows that you do have access to some religion, and you've chosen not to accept it.[/quote]

Seems you're actually making my point. It's not about 'accepting'. It's about truth. Things remain a 'might be, might not be'. Until such time where there is proof it will remain so. You wont understand that- to you it's not about searching for truth- wanna know why?........ You've already apparently found the truth so why would you be searching for it?? Your claims to having the truth is not proof enough for everyone else, thus they still search. Now, i'm sure there was a time in life where you didn't know the truth. You chose one of a possible hundreds of thousands of different 'absolute' truths. That to you is now truth, undeniable.

By saying "we require more in life" i mean this...

We do NOT just, (in your own words), accept something without the facts. There's 199,999,999 different absolute undeniable truths out there. You managed to pick between them yet cannot prove it, cannot substantiate yours above any of the other millions. That's not good enough for some of us, thus we require more.

How is that any different than, to continue your medical analogy, someone who choses, knowing that medicine could keep them alive, to be a DNR patient? There were resources available and they chose to ignore it.

Tell you what..... let's put it into religious perspective for a moment:

Doctor: "Excuse me <patient x>, you are dying and in need of medical treatment. On this table we have 23,000 different vials of medicine. One of them will save you, the other 22,999 will not. You choose. I would suggest you take this one"

Doctor 2: "No no! Take this one... the other one will kill you for sure"

Doctor 3: "No wait! Those two are liars! you must want to survive and then you will pick the right one."

and so on and so forth.

So your point about religion being totally biased is a fallacy.

Absolutely not. Can you think of one religion that specifically says anyone from any religion shall be saved? Does a vicar in church say: "Fear not ye Jews, god loves you too- he does not mind if you deny jesus, or pray to a different god, and neither do we."...

Well? It's not a 'live and let live' policy religion works by. The only way religion aims to help everyone is to convert and drag them away from their god to your god. However considering your god has no more credibility than their god anyway it is pure biased self righteousness.

In fact, it is the people who profess it, or don't, who are biased. But this does not mean that science is any less so, since it too is controlled by, in many cases, the same human beings.

Well i've already repeated my case far too many times to do it again. If you didn't get the point the first 7 times round chances are you never will.

there is a difference between religion and religion.All religions are not equally unscientific. As science is based on proofs. No can prove that god is not there. No one can say with proof that he or she was not having any birth before this birth.nasticism is not supported by science.many religious saying are proven to be scientific. Others have psychological or philosphical relivance.There are certain phenomenas which can be termed as sprithual sciences like reiki, lama fera, vipassna (http://www.dhamma.org/) ,Falun Gong (http://www.falundafa.org/) ,yoga (http://www.yogsansthan.org/enter.asp) ,etc

Originally posted by SnakeLord [quote] you must see it from 'outside' your own field of view, your own line of sight or you'd never understand and never agree.
Very nice, but you do not know my field of view or line of sight.
Science works for everyone- it serves mankind

Today, the general meaning of “science” is basically, a systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study, and also the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.
But science throughout all times is generally regarded as “knowledge,” which obviously incorporates modern science. Just to say that “science” works for “everyone”, is too vague a statement as it is one means to obtain knowledge. You would be correct if you said “knowledge” works for everyone. As science, one aspect of obtaining knowledge, isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, infallible, it is silly to say, it works for everyone, unless it does.
You can even see it in the bible: God himself picks select people, (Abraham, Moses, Noah etc), and looks after them. The rest of mankind he drowns, destroys their homes and villages etc.[/quotes]
Are you seriously putting this up as an argument for your claims? If so you are more ignorant of spirituality, than I gave you credit for.
[quote]Medicine will save a tramp, a rich man, a mass murderer. It is not biased- it saves everyone regardless.
Medicine, is a combination of some aspect of nature, combined by a brain, possessed by man/woman, all created by God.
To the religious institutions is is a 'battle of good vs evil'. Those of us who have not seen the light are the evil. We're the sinners, we're the ones who will not get eternal life unless we find and love god/jesus.
This is sectarianism, your thread opener suggests “religion”, could you please tell me what it is you have against religion, or God, not christianity or islam, etc.
So again i simply state i think religion should take a leaf from the book of science.
Science and religion, are intertwined, it is you who is creating conflict.
It should serve all mankind, not just the lucky few.
What do you mean by lucky few, where is this kind of sentiment found in any scripture, including bible?
We shouldn't be branded as sinners, regarded as evil or whatever else simply because we require more in life than the average easily pleased human being.
Riiiiiiiight!!!!!!
Who is this “we”?
And are you saying that people who believe in the existence of God, cannot be scientists?

Love

Jan Ardena.

SnakeLord said:

The lion, the witch, and the wardrobe was brilliant.

Indeed, the entire Chronicles of Narnia was a masterpiece but I wonder if you ever even noticed the abundant but not so subtle references to Jesus. I highly doubt it.

>"When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards."<

--The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe


Can you think of one religion that specifically says anyone from any religion shall be saved? Does a vicar in church say: "Fear not ye Jews, god loves you too- he does not mind if you deny jesus, or pray to a different god, and neither do we."...

God is not limited by His act of limiting Himself for our own personal understanding, therefore I can't visualize an omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (always present everywhere) and perfect Creator God that couldn't utilize absolute power, constrained only by His absolute wisdom, holiness, and perfect nature to remedy any injustice perceived by a mere mortal. It's beyond dispute at our level of understanding. For mere human beings, the comprehension of absolute truth, absolute wisdom, absolute mercy, absolute justice, absolute wrath, absolute love and all other possible virtues, (in their absolute) is not within our grasp.

wes morris....karl marx..socialist bastard?
i'm deeply offended. he was a great man.

anyway.....what i'm saying is that religion is a catalyst for igniting people's faith.

my grandad had a stroke...very severe one...he slumped on the ground..but chanted mantras to goddess saraswati...the hindu god of learning and speech.

and he got better. he was discharged within 2 days. doctors said he should have been paralysed but he wasn't.

i'm not saying that god came down and intervened.....i'm saying praying to god gives people faith...in a way science can't give them.

religion is more a method for people to gain courage and faith than anything else.

again i'm not talking about the educated minority here.

Originally posted by airavata
wes morris....karl marx..socialist bastard?
i'm deeply offended. he was a great man.

you shouldn't take offense at my opinion of a dead guy. regardless, I think he was a terrible man. i despise socialism. it's a huge lie and a horrible idea. socialistic tendencies are good. pure socialism is a terrible horrible ghastly idea, that's another thread though.
Originally posted by airavata

anyway.....what i'm saying is that religion is a catalyst for igniting people's faith.

Faith in what? Themselves? God? Why does faith in god mean anything? You mean optimism? Hehe, I know of a LOT of people who use religion to CRUSH optimism.
Originally posted by airavata

my grandad had a stroke...very severe one...he slumped on the ground..but chanted mantras to goddess saraswati...the hindu god of learning and speech.

who's to say he wouldn't have gotten better without the hindu god? that's sheer presumption.
Originally posted by airavata

and he got better. he was discharged within 2 days. doctors said he should have been paralysed but he wasn't.

good for him though!
Originally posted by airavata

i'm not saying that god came down and intervened.....i'm saying praying to god gives people faith...in a way science can't give them.

yeah, through pure bullshit.
Originally posted by airavata

religion is more a method for people to gain courage and faith than anything else.

I kind of agree, but it's funny that you have to do it based purely on bullshit. Almost doesn't seem worth it eh? Worse, in order for this bullshit to be effective in it's job.. the "victim" (just to demonize it even more) often must repeatedly spout dogmatic lies which negatively effect everyone around them. Worse than THAT even is that bullshit is horrible for the victims mind, and those which they would infect with their bullshit. Ack.

Further, why is it that everyone thinks religion is the only way to "faith"? That's simply not true. I believe the problem is that people don't really care about the "truth" because once they find some bullshit that satiates their curiosity in whatever subject, they have a tendency to shut down and assume that their "truth" is it. "Game over, truth found... screw you if you think your truth is better than my truth (which doesn't even make SENSE)."
Originally posted by airavata

again i'm not talking about the educated minority here.

me either.

what i'm trying to say is that....for the masses, the situation is sort of like...ignorance is bliss.

god and religion, is the easiest way for the uneducated man to have faith and conviction in himself.

god is basically a comfort barrier.

it's easier for the uneducated majority to have unwavering faith in god...rather than harnessing their faith themselves.

So science has done remarkable things for man and given him knowledge about his world. Modern man has manipulated the laws of the universe and its materials to his benefit. Modern medicine has made it possible for almost everyone to live a long and healthy life. Question is, where is science in the decision to allow a homeless person to live longer? Where is science in the decision to send food to people who are starving? Science may be able to provide ways to do it, but WHY do it? Science does not give us reasons to be compassionate to others who are less fortunate. Nor does it give reasons why send food to the starving and the homeless.
Science may give man knowledge of what to do to extend life, but religion gives the reasons why life is valuable. Man has a great responsibility with every scientific advancement he makes. How he exercises and controls the results of his scientific advancements will depend on how much he values life.
(It is interesting to note that the most scientifically advanced nation was founded on Christian values and the majority of their populace believes in God.)

Originally posted by airavata
what i'm trying to say is that....for the masses, the situation is sort of like...ignorance is bliss.

god and religion, is the easiest way for the uneducated man to have faith and conviction in himself.

god is basically a comfort barrier.

it's easier for the uneducated majority to have unwavering faith in god...rather than harnessing their faith themselves.

Well, I'm not sure education is really the thing, maybe it's the thirst for knowledge in those people that is lacking, or the ability to attain/retain it if they DO seek it... regardless, for the most part I agree. I am however somewhat peeved when the religious right's morality is mandated by the force of their ignorant numbers. Further, I'm fundamentally annoyed when they preach to me like their opinion regarding religion is something that should matter to me too. *shrug*

I would say that regardless of my annoyance, things are exactly as they should be... by definition.

Question is, where is science in the decision to allow a homeless person to live longer? Where is science in the decision to send food to people who are starving? Science may be able to provide ways to do it, but WHY do it?


There has to be a reason other than our humanity? Saving lives, feeding the starving etc do not rely on religion or god. Religion and god will give an individual his own reasons to be humane but some can be humane without questioning the sky.

If you need a reason to be nice to people fair enough. Some of us don't.

ndeed, the entire Chronicles of Narnia was a masterpiece but I wonder if you ever even noticed the abundant but not so subtle references to Jesus. I highly doubt it.

Would i care is more to the point.

God is not limited by His act of limiting Himself for our own personal understanding, therefore I can't visualize an omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (always present everywhere) and perfect Creator God that couldn't utilize absolute power, constrained only by His absolute wisdom, holiness, and perfect nature to remedy any injustice perceived by a mere mortal. It's beyond dispute at our level of understanding. For mere human beings, the comprehension of absolute truth, absolute wisdom, absolute mercy, absolute justice, absolute wrath, absolute love and all other possible virtues, (in their absolute) is not within our grasp.

What's beyond our mere mortal understanding is whether a god even exists or not. As such i dislike people just assuming there is and never hearing a word otherwise. By the same token we shouldn't just say there isn't either. What we must accept is nobody knows- so there might be, there might not be. Nobody is in a position to tell me im a sinner, that i need to repent, or that my life would be better of as a christian. You don't know that, and that's a fact.

Very nice, but you do not know my field of view or line of sight

Maybe i do, maybe i don't.... Just accept whichever you want to believe, same as usual.

Today, the general meaning of “science” is basically, a systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study, and also the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.
But science throughout all times is generally regarded as “knowledge,” which obviously incorporates modern science. Just to say that “science” works for “everyone”, is too vague a statement as it is one means to obtain knowledge. You would be correct if you said “knowledge” works for everyone. As science, one aspect of obtaining knowledge, isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, infallible, it is silly to say, it works for everyone, unless it does.

Before throwing something out onto the world science makes sure something works. It involves theory, extreme testing and then availability to the world. For example medicines- tested for months if not years then given to people when they know everything about it, the side-effects and whatever else.

Religion has no substantial proof or evidence and just throws it out to the public.

If you don't yet understand what i'm saying i'll try to put it in simple terms:

I don't agree that something that has no fact, no proof, no real basis be spread among people. You wont know until it's too late if it's the wrong thing to do. The simple fact anyone is in here debating, including religious against religious shows there is no proof. Everyone must be aware of that. Find the facts then you know exactly what you're dealing with. Until that time everything is mere heresay and you could be causing more harm than good, even if you think you're doing good- you might not be. Get the point yet? Probably not.

Medicine, is a combination of some aspect of nature, combined by a brain, possessed by man/woman, all created by God.

Pure heresay. There's nothing to prove there even is a god. That's a fact.

This is sectarianism, your thread opener suggests “religion”, could you please tell me what it is you have against religion, or God, not christianity or islam, etc.

If you've not worked that out by now not even god could help you.

Science and religion, are intertwined, it is you who is creating conflict.

Conflict is 100000000 different religions all believing they are right, everyone else is wrong. Conflict is not my post stating religion should take a leaf from the book of science.

What do you mean by lucky few, where is this kind of sentiment found in any scripture, including bible?

Looks like you require diagrams for every post. The bible is full to the brim of mass destruction but the saving of one or two people. Noah, Lot and so on and so forth. Each time god has destroyed and killed mass numbers and let one or two 'believers' live. Religious institutions adopt this mannerism. This forum is packed to the brim also with those who believe they are saved above others who have not accepted christ or not accepted buddah or whoever. It is all about pitting yourself against an enemy. The enemy is he who doesn't agree as you do. Ok, you don't burn their villages or kill their wives- but the more humanitarian style is to attempt to persuade someone into your specific belief, to help them too be saved.

Riiiiiiiight!!!!!!
Who is this “we”?
And are you saying that people who believe in the existence of God, cannot be scientists?

Well to do things your way.... tell me where in my writing i said that.

However science and religion are two completely different things. One requires research and proof, the other only requires faith, nothing more.

No reply Jan? C'mon.........

Originally posted by SVRP
Science may be able to provide ways to do it, but WHY do it? Science does not give us reasons to be compassionate to others who are less fortunate. Nor does it give reasons why send food to the starving and the homeless. That is because these are not questions for science; these are questions for philosophy, specifically ethics.

Science may give man knowledge of what to do to extend life, but religion gives the reasons why life is valuable.Except that argument from authority is really a very weak foundation upon which to build any philosophy, especially ethics.

How he exercises and controls the results of his scientific advancements will depend on how much he values life.No, you have it backwards here. Our ethics and values determine how we exercise the power that science has given us. Seeing as that nations and leaders have primarily operated under at least the facade of religion and noting the results perhaps it is time for religion to either adapt or give way to a more stable and rational foundation of values and ethics.

It is interesting to note that the most scientifically advanced nation was founded on Christian values and the majority of their populace believes in God.The U.S. has not always been the most scientifically advanced nation nor is there really any reason to suppose that it will remain so. At various times in history Greece, Rome, China, Sumer, Egypt, and Persia have held that position. That the U.S. does so now really has little to nothing to do with its citizen's religious beliefs.

~Raithere

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Maybe i do, maybe i don't.... Just accept whichever you want to believe, same as usual.
What are you talking about, man?
Before throwing something out onto the world science makes sure something works.
Science doesn’t do shit, people do. What is your point?
Religion has no substantial proof or evidence.
Love has no substantial proof or evidence.
I don't agree that something that has no fact, no proof, no real basis be spread among people.
So you think our lives are lived on facts, do you?
Get the point yet?
The point I get, is that you are using your energy, to destroy something you do not understand.
Pure heresay. There's nothing to prove there even is a god. That's a fact.
Then why use the bible to show, that from your perspective, God selects people? If you are going to argue from the biblical point of view, then you must accept the whole thing, not just isolated events.[/quote][/b]
Conflict is 100000000 different religions all believing they are right, everyone else is wrong.
No, conflict is when two opposing sides clash. You are no different from people who believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, your brainwashing is now based in technology, instead of a religious institution, that’s all.
Conflict is not my post stating religion should take a leaf from the book of science.
Maybe not, but ignorance can lead to conflict, and you display ignorance by only accepting the modern description of science, as science, couple that with the fact that you have no understanding of spirituality, but claim to have, well………
Looks like you require diagrams for every post.
Looks like you’re trying to wiggle out of answering my questions.
The bible is full to the brim of mass destruction but the saving of one or two people. Noah, Lot and so on and so forth.
But where is luck mentioned? Was there a reason for this anihilation?
Each time god has destroyed and killed mass numbers and let one or two 'believers' live.
“Each time” sounds like quite a few, could you pinpoint where this occurs. As we all know about Noah, there is no need to mention that.
…who have not accepted christ or not accepted buddah or whoever.[/b/]
Accepted Buddha, LOL!!!
You’re amusing.
[b]It is all about pitting yourself against an enemy. The enemy is he who doesn't agree as you do.

Okay, you say this forum is full of this type of tyranny, can you show 5 threads, posts, or replies, by christians or muslims, where you are regarded as an enemy.
Ok, you don't burn their villages or kill their wives- but the more humanitarian style is to attempt to persuade someone into your specific belief, to help them too be saved.
Have I tried to persuade you?
Well to do things your way.... tell me where in my writing i said that.
It is not that you have said it directly, but it is very difficult not to come to that conclusion.
However science and religion are two completely different things. One requires research and proof, the other only requires faith, nothing more.
So, can a person, who believes in God, be a scientist?

Love

Jan Ardena.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SnakeLord
Maybe i do, maybe i don't.... Just accept whichever you want to believe, same as usual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What are you talking about, man?


I guess that's the only way you can make yourself look intelligent, by picking on other peoples grammatical errors...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before throwing something out onto the world science makes sure something works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Science doesn’t do shit, people do. What is your point?


The same thing could be said about religion.
Your television, computer, stove, phone, modem, electricity lines, etc. are all science. And you are saying that science doesn't do shit???


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion has no substantial proof or evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Love has no substantial proof or evidence.


NICE TRY! You try using that petty point to support the existence of a higher being. Let me point out that love is an emotion. Even so, love CAN be felt, both by the person and the receiver. Love can also be physical, thus it can be testable and proven. Love may be fighting and dying for a child - The very act is proof of love.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't agree that something that has no fact, no proof, no real basis be spread among people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So you think our lives are lived on facts, do you?

Nice try, again. Yes, are life in lived mainly on FACTS. Fire is hot, so I don't touch it. FACT. I go to work, I get money. FACT. I go to school, I get a better job. FACT.
Even things that we don't live our lives on are backed up by evidence and proof.


Get the point yet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The point I get, is that you are using your energy, to destroy something you do not understand.

You are critizing this person, and I would like to join in. He should not waste his energy trying to destroy something that doesn't exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure heresay. There's nothing to prove there even is a god. That's a fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then why use the bible to show, that from your perspective, God selects people? If you are going to argue from the biblical point of view, then you must accept the whole thing, not just isolated events.

Prove that the Bible is false, and you prove that the Christian God is false. By breaking down the Bible, and God's idealogy and personality, we can prove whether he really exists.


Maybe not, but ignorance can lead to conflict, and you display ignorance by only accepting the modern description of science, as science, couple that with the fact that you have no understanding of spirituality, but claim to have, well………

We accept modern science because it is logical, testable, and has evidence to support it. We accept modern science because it gives results, and can be used to aid humanity.

Science doesn’t do shit, people do. What is your point?

[I]The same thing could be said about religion.
Exactly, science and religion are only words which describe, they have no life.
Your television, computer, stove, phone, modem, electricity lines, etc. are all science. And you are saying that science doesn't do shit???
Did “science” make these objects, or people?
Love has no substantial proof or evidence.

NICE TRY! You try using that petty point to support the existence of a higher being.
You think love is a petty point?
From my perspective it is the existence of the Supreme Being that supports the existence of love. ;)
Even so, love CAN be felt, both by the person and the receiver.
I agree, so quit telling people who genuinely understand love, through firsthand experience, what love is. :p
Love can also be physical, thus it can be testable and proven. Love may be fighting and dying for a child - The very act is proof of love.
The act can be verified, mainly by the object of that love, and to some degrees by observers who have experienced giving and receiving love, the act alone is not proof of love, as you said, it can be felt, the only proof is the intention of the lover.
So love is not physical, it cannot be tested in a laboratory, that is nonsense. What may be tested is the bodies actions and reactions to emotions.
Prove that the Bible is false, and you prove that the Christian God is false. By breaking down the Bible, and God's idealogy and personality, we can prove whether he really exists.
Well do it then, lets break it down, this is what I’m talking about…..bring it on. :)
We accept modern science because it is logical, testable, and has evidence to support it. We accept modern science because it gives results, and can be used to aid humanity.
Okay, you accept modern science, that’s cool, I also accept modern science based on supportable evidence, anybody in their right mind would, but it cannot be the answer to everything, by its very nature. And it is not the only aid to humanity.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Then why use the bible to show, that from your perspective, God selects people? If you are going to argue from the biblical point of view, then you must accept the whole thing, not just isolated events.

No no, when the religious man says god is all loving etc etc a non religious man is at total right to point out the bad side. I can use the bible to debate with you because you believe the bible to be the word of god, not me. Once there's proof of the existence of god then i can read every last word of the bible but until then i use it to point out flaws and opposites in what you say. For example: Truthseeker said: "There are no rules to get into heaven, god is all loving". As a rebuttal someone can point out from the same texts he uses to show that to be wrong. The minute i did that i heard: "Oh that's just mistranslation or metaphor". I don't have to 'accept' anything but if you argue in context of a book surely i can use the same book to show things other than that which you claim.

You are no different from people who believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, your brainwashing is now based in technology, instead of a religious institution, that’s all.

For the umpteenth time now all i said was religion should take a leaf out of the book of science. Science works for all mankind- religion is very individual based. I think if god is real and religion is worthy there would be no need for common threats of burning in hell and so on.

Was there a reason for this anihilation?

Is there ever a reason to mass annihilate your own children? I don't think so.

“Each time” sounds like quite a few, could you pinpoint where this occurs. As we all know about Noah, there is no need to mention that.

Lot and his wife- oh until she turned around to name but one. I assume you've read the bible and as such would probably know 'each time'. It's he manner with which god treats mankind that frankly i find appaling. The bible is full to the brim with destruction and death or childish threatening by gods hand. He works for one person and against others. Another example would be Abraham. Abraham moved to Gerar and told the king, Sarai was his sister instead of his wife. The king took his sister whereby god said: "... you are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman" The king explained his innocence and that he thought she was Abrahams sister, God replies: "Yes i know you did this with a clear conscience, and so i have kept you from sinning against me" Here he says he knows the king was innocent but made the original threat anyway. The says sinning against him? I would have said Abraham was the sinner for lying that his wife was his sister and allowing the king to end up in such a position. However god said Abraham was a prophet and threatened the king instead even though he already knew the mans innocence.(Genesis 20). A bit earlier it explains why Abraham told them Sarai was his sister. He feared for his own life.

Accepted Buddha, LOL!!!
You’re amusing.

Why is that amusing?

Okay, you say this forum is full of this type of tyranny, can you show 5 threads, posts, or replies, by christians or muslims, where you are regarded as an enemy.

Yep. Will paste them in a new post.

Have I tried to persuade you?

Have you ever promoted christianity to anyone? It wouldn't matter what you said to me unless you had factual data to substantiate it. You might have, you might not have- i do not recall.

It is not that you have said it directly, but it is very difficult not to come to that conclusion.

Meaning i have not said that, you're just making your own groundless interpretation.

So, can a person, who believes in God, be a scientist?

They can do as they please- i don't give rules.

I'll get to the rest later.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your television, computer, stove, phone, modem, electricity lines, etc. are all science. And you are saying that science doesn't do shit???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Did “science” make these objects, or people?


People using SCIENCE made these objects.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love can also be physical, thus it can be testable and proven. Love may be fighting and dying for a child - The very act is proof of love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The act can be verified, mainly by the object of that love, and to some degrees by observers who have experienced giving and receiving love, the act alone is not proof of love, as you said, it can be felt, the only proof is the intention of the lover.
So love is not physical, it cannot be tested in a laboratory, that is nonsense. What may be tested is the bodies actions and reactions to emotions.

Obviously you have never done physcology...

Love is basically made up of three parts: Passion, committment, and intimacy.

All three can be tested.
Passion: The couple touch each other
Committment: The couple have stayed or will stay with each other for a long time. They are dedicated.
Intimacy: The couple are close, as in friends.

Now, which love do you want to prove exists??? That's right, there are quite a few types of love (unlike god, who does not exist)

So, you can test if love exists, by testing if the couple are friends, have sexual activity (not necessary), and are committed to each other, not ditching the other no matter what.

Another theist claim bites the dust...


Well do it then, lets break it down, this is what I’m talking about…..bring it on.

The contradictions in the Bible would take up FAR to much space on this forum...
Go to these links, and enjoy!
http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblecontradictions.htm
http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html



Okay, you accept modern science, that’s cool, I also accept modern science based on supportable evidence, anybody in their right mind would, but it cannot be the answer to everything, by its very nature. And it is not the only aid to humanity.

Sure it can. Just because science doesn't know every answer yet, because humans minds are still evolving, doesn't mean we have to give credit to a higher being.
Humans never learn from their mistakes in history. Who made the mountains? God. Later it was discovered that tectonic plates pushing against one another made mountains. Who makes lightning? God. Later it was discovered that particles in the air and on the ground make lightning. You see, we get nowhere by labelling our ignorance "God". When a doctor sees a tumour on a human being, he does not write on it "God's work, don't touch"

Hehehe, I have a challenge for Jan, and any other theist here.

We all agree that if Christ was never resurrected, then Christianity is false???

Good. Now, the challenge is, to tell me what happened on Easter. I don't need proof, or evidence, or anything like that. I just have one condition.
In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Now, to help you write your 'account', I have taken some main points from Luke, Mark, Matthew, John and Paul. This will help you write your story...

What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)

Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)

Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)

John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)

Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)

Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)

John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)

Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)

Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)

John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)

Mark: Yes (16:4)

Luke: Yes (24:2)

John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)

Mark: One young man (16:5)

Luke: Two men (24:4)

John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)

Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)

Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)

John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)

Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)

Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)

John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)

Mark: Yes (16:10,11)

Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)

John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)

Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)

John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)

John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)

Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)

Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)

John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)

Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)

Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)

Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)

John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)

Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)

Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)

Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)

John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday

Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday

John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)

Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee

Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)

Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)

John: No ascension

Paul: No ascension

Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)


Enjoy Christians!

mountainhaire-

Its psychology....not physcology

Jan-

From my perspective it is the existence of the Supreme Being that supports the existence of love.

Yes its true that the concept of love exists, no doubting that. But you see, the concept of love can exist independently of God. Basically the notion of a supreme being is not needed to understand "love".

Love can be looked at as a effect of common social interaction throughtout our history. We Can look at this issue through the eyes of natural selection

Love , like hate, exists only by virtue of its past contribution to genetic proliferation. At the level of the gene, it is as crassly self-serving to love a sibling, an offspring, or a spouse as it is to hate an enemy.

You can look at love like you look at hunger. Both feelings are designed to motivate one to a certain action. It is beneficial for the organism to have these feelings innately imbedded into the composition of the mind. This is because emotions are a great deciding factor in one's actions and if these emotions can be administered without much conscious thought and sometimes on an instinctual level than the varying brain processes used for decision making can be on a convienent sub-conscious level. This would allow for unconscious analysis. When someone is hungry they do not consciously examine their need for nutrients, instead the mind produces a feeling (hunger) that is sucessfull in leading to the desired activity- eating. Love can be looked at on this very same level. Love allows one to engage in behaviors necessary to interact with people and to sustain relationships that are beneficial for one's survival and genetic legacy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove that the Bible is false, and you prove that the Christian God is false. By breaking down the Bible, and God's idealogy and personality, we can prove whether he really exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well do it then, lets break it down, this is what I’m talking about…..bring it on.

Ok.... this is seriously hard work. I am now on page 24 of the bible- only 1,000 and something to go :D I have gleaned as much data as is possible and present the first few pages and points here now.

Please note that not once in these 24 pages have i seen god express any love to any human. He has let particular humans live when he goes on his path of destruction but has never claimed to like mankind. I have noted on many occasions god offering people lots of land and their kids spreading across the face of the earth because they have done something for god, so some mild pay off for services received but absolutely no mention of his caring for mankind.

This is bloody long- my apologies. After this i will actually put up a webpage making it easier to read and digest.

------------------------------------------------------------

1) God shows multiple personality:

Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, our likeness"
Gen 12:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language.."
Gen 3:22 "And the lord god said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

2) God visits earth in physical form:

Gen 3:8 'Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the lord god as he was walking in the cool of the day, and they hid from the lord god among the trees of the garden. But the lord god called to the man, "where are you?"

3) God shows his first true signs of anger:

Gen 3:14 to Gen 3:24 God curses the serpent, curses the woman and makes her childbirth more painful, curses the ground and curses Adam.

4) God shows man does not have eternal life:

Gen 3:22 and Gen 3:24 ".. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever." God then banned them from the Garden of Eden specifically so they would remain mortal. 'He placed on the east side of the garden of eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way of the tree of life.'

5) God shows favouritism over offerings presented to him:

Gen 4:3 'In the course of time cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the lord. But abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The lord looked with favour on able and his offering, but on cain and his offering he did not look with favour. So cain was very angry and his face looked downcast.' Funnily enough it is also mentioned in Sumerian literature that the gods had a particular fancy for meat offerings. cains fruits were looked upon with discontent whereas the meat offered by able was liked. This is further mentioned in

Gen 8:21 'The lord god smelled the pleasing aroma...' When offered a meat sacrifice from Noah. After smelling the aroma of the meat god promised never to kill mankind again via a flood. It would seem the meat is of particular worth to god. I might have to kill my pet cat. :) God then gave cain a bollocking for not providing something to his satisfaction as seen in Gen 4:6 "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." The consequential actions of cain were as a direct result of the lack of love from god. Fruit wasn't good enough for the 'master' and he scalded cain for it.

6) God's first sign of vengeance:

Gen 4:15 But the lord said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over."

7) Got gets heartburn and grief stricken and realises he made a big mistake:

Gen 6:6 The lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

8) Got decides to end it all:

Gen 6:7 'So the lord said, "I will wipe mankind..." Not only mankind though.... god decided to wipe animals and creatures that move along the ground and birds of the air for he was 'grieved'.

9) God gets confused, so does Noah:

Gen 6:19 "You are to bring into the ark TWO of ALL living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you."

Gen 7:2 "Take with you SEVEN of every kind of CLEAN animal, a male and its mate, and TWO of every unclean animal.."

It ended up with Noah taking: Gen 7:8 'Pairs of clean and unclean animals...as god had commanded Noah' Pairs= TWO. If he took two of each clean animal he'd be specifically going against gods commandment of taking SEVEN of each clean animal.

10) God wants to admit to retriubution/pay back?

Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of god has god made man."

11) God doesn't want man to progress so he puts a spanner in the works:

Gen 11:6 'The lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

The question is: what didn't god want them doing?

12) God gets nasty.

Abraham goes to Egypt. In order to save his own life he tells his wife to lie and say that she is his sister. They both state Sarah is Abrahams sister so the pharoah takes her as his wife.

Gen 12:17 'But the lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharoah AND his household because of abrahams wife sarai.

Who really is to blame? Abraham and Sarah for lying or the Pharoah for not knowing they were married?

This happens again very shortly after:

Gen 20:2 'And there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister." '.. But god came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman." Abimelech states his innocence. Not only had he not gone near the woman but they had specifically stated they were brother and sister. God then retracts his statement:

Gen 20:6 'Then god said to him in the dream, "Yes, i know you did this with clear conscience, and so i have kept you sinning against me. That is why i did not let you touch her. Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die."

Strangely enough at this time there were no ten commandments and no written word of gods 'rules'. As such how would the pharoah know taking a married woman was 'sinning against god'? Not to mention it was Abraham and Sarah who had lied about their marital positions in both cases. In one case god inflicted diseases, in the other he makes cold calculated threats- both against innocent men who didn't know the truth and wouldn't even know the rules.The whole issue gets even stranger as it progresses. It would seem one cannot 'take' a married person but a married person can openly 'take' a single person as demonstrated in Gen 16:1- 16:4.

Gen 16:1-16:4 'Now sarah, abrahams wife, had borne him no children. But she had an egyptian maidservant named hagar; So she said to abraham, "The lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps i can build a family through her. Abraham ends up sleeping with hagar who conceives. No punishment was given, no disease was given. In fact god helped them out AFTER abraham had been adulterous by
allowing sarah to conceive even though she was 90 years old. The smart thing to do would have been to make sarah able to conceive the child of a prophet before he broke gods ruling of no adultery. The act of adultery was considered worthy of disease spreading and death to the pharoahs but it was all fine and good for abraham. Ok, his wife allowed and even encouraged the act but it was in direct defiance of gods ruling. As punsihment god gave them both the ability to have their own children- hardly in line to the punsihment the pharoahs and kings received and
were threatened with. God had actually gone so far as to close the wombs of all women in the Abimelechs household as punishment for him taking Abrahams wife, (Gen 20:18).

13) Do christians go against the specific word of god?

Gen 17:9-17:14 states that every male, whether bought or born must be circumcised. Jewish people still undertake this action whereas christians do not. Does this deamean the original word of god? It is specifically going against his rules- nowhere in it does it say only the jews must do it. God goes on to say that any
person who has not been circumcised will be 'cut off from his people' and is going against the covenant of god.I concur that no matter how many hymns a man can sing this 'breaking of gods covenant' will be taken into account when the time comes.I
fail to see the importance of chopping off the end of a mans penis but i'm sure god has his reasons.

14) God knows the difference between right and wrong. God feels guilt and shame at his own actions. God is a sinner:

Gen 18:17 Then the lord said:, "Shall i hide from abraham what i am about to do?"

God must have realised that what he was doing was bad. The second someone has to question a decision it becomes one of moral principles. If he needed to hide an action from someone he must have considered the fact it wasn't the right thing to do.

God 'goes down' to see if things are as bad as he suspects. This shows he is far from 'all knowing'. Abraham spoke to god and pleaded for the lives god was planning to destroy. Meanwhile in the city two angels had arrived. They were told to 'wash their feet' and to spend the night. After some persuasion they agreed. Their arrival seemed to arouse distinct homosexual urges. All men, both young and old, surrounded Lots house and demanded that the angels be brought outside so the men could have sex with them. Lot offered his two virgin daughters as an alternative but the men wanted the visitors.

15) God shows his destructive ability:

The two angels warned lot about the destruction that was about to meet the city. By the hand of god: Gen 19:13 "..because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." Gen 19:24 'Then the lord rained down burning sulphur on sodom and gomorrah- from the lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities- and also the vegetation in the land. But lots wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

16) God 'tests' people inconsiderately and shows his true want is for people to fear him.

Gen 22:1 'Some time later god tested abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here i am" He replied. Then god said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains i will tell you about."

Abraham has surely already proved his worth to god, and yet god now asks him to kill his child, (it states his only son even though just a bit earlier it clearly stateshe has a son with hagar). It seems god cannot count or has an extremely bad memory.

On the page before god tells abraham he will look after both sons, Isaac and Ishmail. As Abraham is about to sacrifice his son an angel calls to him, (Gen 22:12), "Do not lay a hand on the boy.. do not do anything to him Now i know that you fear god..."

Nowhere is love mentioned. No mention of god loving abraham and no mention of abraham loving god. The only thing mentioned and the only thing that saved abrahams son was fear. Because abraham feared god, his son was saved.

--------------------------------------------------------------

As an extra bit i will include this:

Gen 4:3 'In the course of time cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the lord. But abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The lord looked with favour on able and his offering, but on cain and his offering he did not look with favour.

Gen 8:21 'The lord god smelled the pleasing aroma...'

Gen 15:9 'So the lord said to him, "Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon."

These are just a few instances where god has shown his love for meat. Anyone who knows any sumerian literature will understand and appreciate this. The gods were always known as great lovers of meat.

Enjoy.

The bible is metaphor, it's parable. How can one perform any reasonable analysis on such? I mean, metaphors can't contradict one another right, since they blah, blah blah blah?

:rolleyes:

God is such a prankster, here is this garbled mess of bullshit! Believe it or burn in hell!!!!!!!

What a holy spirit!

If I felt there was any evidence whatsoever that there were a deity any resemblence to that which is presented in the bible, I'd be permanently crippled by despair. :)

I'd like to point out that science and religion do not necessarily have to oppose each other. There are many religious traditions (Zen Buddhism comes immediately to mind) that don't necessarily conflict with modern science. Science and religion generally only contradict when religions try to make empirical claims. Science isn't interested in morality and religion generally isn't interested in how the natural world works. A claim like 'people should act forgivingly toward each other' doesn't have anything to do with science, just as Newton's laws of motion don't have anything to do with religion. The problem comes in when religions start making empirical claims like 'the earth is 8000 years old.'

I think that science and religion should stick to their respective fields and avoid a lot of conflict.

No no, when the religious man says god is all loving etc etc a non religious man is at total right to point out the bad side.

Your concept of arguing this point, is so wrong there is no point illuminating the nonesense, as there wouldn't be much left to argue about, so i will preceed along your line of reason.

So what you are saying is that there is a good and bad side to the bible, one side says God is good and the other says God is bad. Great, because that means God exists as both are using the same tool to come to a conclusion. The only downside to that is, the man who looks for the bad side, has a poor fund of knowledge.
I can use the bible to debate with you because you believe the bible to be the word of god, not me.
Then you must also accept that God is the creator, even though you think He is bad.
Once there's proof of the existence of god then i can read every last word of the bible but until then i use it to point out flaws and opposites in what you say.
Well I say, God is the creator of the earth, how are you going to point out the flaws, using the bible. Please hurry with the reply, as I am holding my breath.
For example: Truthseeker said: "There are no rules to get into heaven, god is all loving".
Well, Truthseeker is mistaken, there are rules to get into heaven, a good indication is the ten commandments.
Is there ever a reason to mass annihilate your own children? I don't think so.
Firstly, God can do as He likes. He breathed life into the clay and it became a living soul, remember, He can also take it away, but He claims the soul and the earth the body. The soul is distinct from the body, (breath/clay) the pure soul, coming from God, is neither born or dies, like God, it is eternal, this is what is meant by “sons of God” as opposed to "sons of Adam". Secondly, God kills, He anihilates demons. When the earth is overburdened with demonic activity, God steps in and relieves the earth. Thirdly, if you read carefully, you will understand that at that time, the earth was overburdened with demonic activity, so it became necassery.
So, can a person, who believes in God, be a scientist?

They can do as they please- i don't give rules.

Okay, let me put it another way, do you have any respect for a scientist who believes in God?

Love

Jan Ardena.

People using SCIENCE made these objects.
Yes, I agree, people using knowledge, made these things.
Obviously you have never done physcology...
What is pyschology? It is the science of the soul or mind, it is a way to develop knowledge (science) of how and why we do the things we do, and act the way we act. There are different ways to learn, state education is one, observing yourself and others is another.
Love is basically made up of three parts: Passion, committment, and intimacy.
I do not doubt that love can contain these attributes, but these attributes are also found in actions which are not related to love, plus you do not have to have these attributes to love, so pure love is distinct from these.
All three can be tested.
Passion: The couple touch each other
Committment: The couple have stayed or will stay with each other for a long time. They are dedicated.
Intimacy: The couple are close, as in friends.
Why do you only attribute love to couples?
Passion may have nothing to do with love, one can be passionate about killing cows to make burgers, because it is pleasing to ones palate. Where is the love in that?
One could be committed to ones gang member friends, through fear, greed or vanity.
When a john pays a hooker for some intimate relations, is he really displaying love and affection?
Now, which love do you want to prove exists??? That's right, there are quite a few types of love (unlike god, who does not exist)
Well, you start the ball rolling.
Do you know for sure, God doesn’t exist? If so can you prove it?
So, you can test if love exists, by testing if the couple are friends, have sexual activity (not necessary), and are committed to each other, not ditching the other no matter what.
This couple thing is boring and presents no challenge in identifying love, do you think you can up the tempo a little?
Another theist claim bites the dust...
Yeah right!
Sure it can. Just because science doesn't know every answer yet,
If scientists don’t know, then they don’t know, accept it, but it doesn’t mean we should put everything on hold, that I regard as oppression.
Who made the mountains? God. Later it was discovered that tectonic plates pushing against one another made mountains. Who makes lightning? God. Later it was discovered that particles in the air and on the ground make lightning.
What caused the tetonic plates to move?
What causes the particles in the air and on the ground to combine in such a way?
If you enquire in this way, you come to the understanding it was the original cause, the cause of all causes, God.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by MooseKnuckle
[quote]Love , like hate, exists only by virtue of its past contribution to genetic proliferation. At the level of the gene, it is as crassly self-serving to love a sibling, an offspring, or a spouse as it is to hate an enemy. You can look at love like you look at hunger. Both feelings are designed to motivate one to a certain action. It is beneficial for the organism to have these feelings innately imbedded into the composition of the mind. This is because emotions are a great deciding factor in one's actions and if these emotions can be administered without much conscious thought and sometimes on an instinctual level than the varying brain processes used for decision making can be on a convienent sub-conscious level. This would allow for unconscious analysis. When someone is hungry they do not consciously examine their need for nutrients, instead the mind produces a feeling (hunger) that is sucessfull in leading to the desired activity- eating. Love can be looked at on this very same level. Love allows one to engage in behaviors necessary to interact with people and to sustain relationships that are beneficial for one's survival and genetic legacy. [/B]

I believe love is a personal thing, I love and am loved, but I do not see it in the same way you are expressing, and furthermore, my personal experience, which is genuine, bares no resemblence to your explanation. Therefore please bring your explanation more in line with something that not only me, but the majority of ordinary, everyday people, who also have experience of loving and being loved, can relate to.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Wesmorris: If I felt there was any evidence whatsoever that there were a deity any resemblence to that which is presented in the bible, I'd be permanently crippled by despair.

Since it appears that you have no evidence for the diety in the Bible does that mean your life is full of joy, hope and whatever is the oppisite of dispair? If so I am happy for you and it would be nice to see those feelings show a little in your posts.

I myself find a great deal of joy in believing in a loving God. From my perspective I see plenty of evidence of this God and if I thought that she did not exist I would be crippled by dispair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No no, when the religious man says god is all loving etc etc a non religious man is at total right to point out the bad side.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your concept of arguing this point, is so wrong there is no point illuminating the nonesense, as there wouldn't be much left to argue about, so i will preceed along your line of reason.
He is perfectly correct in using the Bible. If someone assumes that the Bible is correct, and uses it to support their opinion, it makes sense to use a different part of the Bible to point out a contradiction. Now if you say that you only believe certain versus, we couldn't use the Bible... but then the question would be how do you know which versus.

So what you are saying is that there is a good and bad side to the bible, one side says God is good and the other says God is bad. Great, because that means God exists as both are using the same tool to come to a conclusion.
No. It's like saying the 3 bears were both good and bad. It doesn't mean they exist, but if they did exist as described in the book they would have a bad side.

The only downside to that is, the man who looks for the bad side, has a poor fund of knowledge.
I call it looking at the whole picture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can use the bible to debate with you because you believe the bible to be the word of god, not me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you must also accept that God is the creator, even though you think He is bad.
How did you jump from line 1 to 2? Him not believing in the bible as the word of god does not mean that he 'must also accept that God is the creator'. All he has to accept is that, if the book is correct, that God is the creator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once there's proof of the existence of god then i can read every last word of the bible but until then i use it to point out flaws and opposites in what you say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I say, God is the creator of the earth, how are you going to point out the flaws, using the bible. Please hurry with the reply, as I am holding my breath.
He wasn't. He was pointing out flaws in your other comments. I doubt many people will get upset if you say that you believe that the God of the Bible was the creator. It's your belief, is on pure faith, and has nothing to do with our current lives. The problem comes when you try to apply the Bible, but there are contradicting ideas within.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example: Truthseeker said: "There are no rules to get into heaven, god is all loving".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Truthseeker is mistaken, there are rules to get into heaven, a good indication is the ten commandments.
We agree. Truthseeker is almost always mistaken:)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there ever a reason to mass annihilate your own children? I don't think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, God can do as He likes. He breathed life into the clay and it became a living soul, remember, He can also take it away, but He claims the soul and the earth the body.
So God has no morals? He can do as He likes, and to hell with everyone else? I know if I did what He did, most theists would claim I'm going to hell.

The soul is distinct from the body, (breath/clay) the pure soul, coming from God, is neither born or dies, like God, it is eternal, this is what is meant by “sons of God” as opposed to "sons of Adam".
So God can kill because the soul survives? Well hell, the soul survives if I kill too. The point is that he is taking the choice/potential/life away from the people He kills. He is stealing their life on earth, and stealing is a sin.

Secondly, God kills, He anihilates demons. When the earth is overburdened with demonic activity, God steps in and relieves the earth.
Yes, and also kills many many innocent people. He is all powerful, so is he just too lazy to sort out the good and the bad?

Thirdly, if you read carefully, you will understand that at that time, the earth was overburdened with demonic activity, so it became necassery.
This is like shooting the hostage to get to the guy with the gun.

-----------------------------------------