View Full Version : Faith vs Reason
UncleChrist
02-11-08, 12:17 PM
(Quote) From GS
Religious faith depends entirely on divine initiative, not on human discovery of the kind occurring in science. Science is based on human observation and reason, while theology is based on divine revelation”
And, whose divine revelation shall we believe? The question has no satisfactory answer, once you abandon hard facts and the only tool to evaluate them (objective reasoning). Faith supports all religions! Once you abandon facts and objective reasoning, the world’s theologies are reduced to a stale collection of irresolvable, competing doctrines, each with its own testimonials, divine revelations and miracles. Why should I reject the native religion of the Apache in favor of your brand of Christianity? What will your reasons be if you have abandoned reason itself? Are you going to argue that Christianity was historical whereas the other religions are not?
If you do invoke historical arguments, you are submitting to a form of reasoning based on facts--not faith. And, if historical arguments can, in principle, uphold your religion, then they can, in principle, break your religion! Proof would be meaningless without the possibility of failure. Therefore, if you choose to argue along historical lines, then we will be happy to refute Christianity by showing that it has no historical validity!
So there we are, each man with his own religion--and no logical reason in the world for believing in any of the others, including yours. Doesn’t that make your god unjust? How could your god send anyone to hell for being unable to do the impossible (convert to your religion without having any reason for doing so)? If faith and personal revelation is all there is, there being no appeal to reason, then we have the best of all arguments for rejecting your god. He is unjust.
If you want to believe in a just god, then you must argue that there are reasons for believing in him. Those reasons must be compelling, for no one could justly be sent to hell for wrongly rejecting weak arguments. Revelations to people long dead (or to present individuals) and/or faith will not do the job. But, once you do argue that there are compelling reasons for believing in your god, then we have the right to ask what those reasons are. We have the right to examine them, to reject them if they are weak. In the end, neither you nor your god can hide behind faith.
------------------------------------------------
thank you GS
my faith is based upon my own personal experience, not on a religion. if you seek truth, it is there to be found...all around, not just in a book or a preacher's mouth. i never did understand people who could say they believe something just because they were told it was true. especially when the religion itself attests to the validity and importance of an experience. religion is a cult. religion is a country club. religion is a political agenda. it is big business. it's indoctrination. but it's not the source of truth. it is not the answer.
my faith is based upon my own personal experience, not on a religion. if you seek truth, it is there to be found...all around, not just in a book or a preacher's mouth. i never did understand people who could say they believe something just because they were told it was true. especially when the religion itself attests to the validity and importance of an experience. religion is a cult. religion is a country club. religion is a political agenda. it is big business. it's indoctrination. but it's not the source of truth. it is not the answer.
That's about as good as it gets; only fools think otherwise
Religious faith depends entirely on divine initiative, not on human discovery of the kind occurring in science. Science is based on human observation and reason, while theology is based on divine revelation”
some parts of religions are based on scientific observations. we can't see spirits today, but the ancient people could. and it's not necessary to believe in the knowledge religions have, science will rediscover those things later.
jayleew
02-11-08, 01:20 PM
Good one UncleChrist. I am trying to fight this battle of faith vs reason, to its end. I want both sides to win, so i'm losing my mind.
In the end, perhaps I will have reason to have faith...in fact, I hope that I do. The other conclusion is not as attractive..if I have faith in reason....that is in my mind a bad thing...faith in personal reason is biased and I can't trust it.
It is not just for Christianity to preach that you must believe in God to go to heaven. At this point (with the given lack of evidence), that is abandoning reason. And if God were author of the universe, then I was made like this and I will be punished for God's carelessness of ensuring that I have a reasonable shot at weighing the evidence and choosing to believe. A just god would give a reason to believe for those he made to need reason.
I see two sides to the argument, either there is no god or we all don't have a clue and ought not to condemn others, using the Bible. Either there is no god or religion is broken. Both sides sound plausible to me.
UncleChrist
02-11-08, 01:43 PM
some parts of religions are based on scientific observations. we can't see spirits today, but the ancient people could.
Your joking Right ?
:D
Like steam rising from the wounds in a corpse.... sorta crap
jayleew
02-11-08, 01:45 PM
I didn't catch that, thats hilarious! :D
some parts of religions are based on scientific observations. we can't see spirits today, but the ancient people could. and it's not necessary to believe in the knowledge religions have, science will rediscover those things later.
What evidence have you got to support your view ?
sisyphus__
02-11-08, 06:35 PM
Religious faith depends entirely on divine initiative, not on human discovery of the kind occurring in science. Science is based on human observation and reason, while theology is based on divine revelation”
Sure, start a thread about it why don't you; good idea, I reckon, with all of the serious debate being debunked here most of the time.
However my opinion is that Christianity, despite all of it's nonsense in the bible and it's historicial proof or whatnot related with such things, is actually ... well, take this first: Christianity, or to say here the "beliefe in god" (despite it's being subjected to rational approaches), is also somewhat "mystical"; or to put it in another way, it is what the search for "God" actually is. Because, the search for "God" is simply "what God is" to some Christians. So, if it is actually some universal connection, then the bible is wrong maybe to state some of the things that it does, like the burning bush talking. But if it is the universe itself, some form of mystical idea, then we aren't sure what it is you could mean by saying it is rational or whatever you said above.
From these perspectives "God" cannot be denied, or disproven, and the religion of Christianity is nothing but a practical beliefe in God based on what history hasn't really proven.
I plan on posting this aganist my Good will; when I said mystical, I had only meant something that we aren't sure about. The rational in God is not found; and people have every reason to continue believing in "God" as the see him.
/embarassed
Medicine*Woman
02-11-08, 06:36 PM
I didn't catch that, thats hilarious! :D
*************
M*W: I'm happy for you. The last time we discussed this topic, you were sure you were filled with reason. I'm glad to see you have done some research of your own. The answers are there. You will find them within yourself. You will always find them within your own mind.
Faith - the conviction that something is true without any evidence.
Why is there any value to such an irrational position?
Crunchy Cat
02-11-08, 08:54 PM
Faith - the conviction that something is true without any evidence.
Why is there any value to such an irrational position?
Because it might satisfy your psychological and emotional needs... which for most people is far more valuable than truth.
This matter is becoming of great importance here in the US. I don't mean to sound like one of those crazy "the end is nigh" types, but the line between church and state is blurred with every election, with every new generation of politicians. It is because of this that I wish people of all faiths would step back for a second and think...
The only real "science" found in religion is that religion is a natural part of the human archetype. Religion has been around as long as we have--at least in this current evolutionary step--and it isn't going to go away unless we evolve into something else. I mean, there really is something to be said for that, that there is this inherent need to feel that we are not our own masters, that there is something greater than us watching over.
The interesting question is "Why?" Why do we need to feel this way? Is this need built-in evidence of our knowledge of a creator, or is it merely a byproduct of our self-awareness?
Anyway...sorry for the rant...to the original post...you cannot find reason in the organized religions. I'm not saying that there is no god (or God, as it were), but I don't know that there IS one, and I don't think there is any scientific merit in the holy texts we know. There's plenty of good advice (and bad, as well), but no scientific merit to any of it. There's not really intended to be any, though...
(Quote) From GS
Religious faith depends entirely on divine initiative, not on human discovery of the kind occurring in science. Science is based on human observation and reason, while theology is based on divine revelation”
And, whose divine revelation shall we believe? The question has no satisfactory answer, once you abandon hard facts and the only tool to evaluate them (objective reasoning). Faith supports all religions! Once you abandon facts and objective reasoning, the world’s theologies are reduced to a stale collection of irresolvable, competing doctrines, each with its own testimonials, divine revelations and miracles. Why should I reject the native religion of the Apache in favor of your brand of Christianity? What will your reasons be if you have abandoned reason itself? Are you going to argue that Christianity was historical whereas the other religions are not?
If you do invoke historical arguments, you are submitting to a form of reasoning based on facts--not faith. And, if historical arguments can, in principle, uphold your religion, then they can, in principle, break your religion! Proof would be meaningless without the possibility of failure. Therefore, if you choose to argue along historical lines, then we will be happy to refute Christianity by showing that it has no historical validity!
So there we are, each man with his own religion--and no logical reason in the world for believing in any of the others, including yours. Doesn’t that make your god unjust? How could your god send anyone to hell for being unable to do the impossible (convert to your religion without having any reason for doing so)? If faith and personal revelation is all there is, there being no appeal to reason, then we have the best of all arguments for rejecting your god. He is unjust.
If you want to believe in a just god, then you must argue that there are reasons for believing in him. Those reasons must be compelling, for no one could justly be sent to hell for wrongly rejecting weak arguments. Revelations to people long dead (or to present individuals) and/or faith will not do the job. But, once you do argue that there are compelling reasons for believing in your god, then we have the right to ask what those reasons are. We have the right to examine them, to reject them if they are weak. In the end, neither you nor your god can hide behind faith.
------------------------------------------------
thank you GS
Hi GS
The reason why people believe in one religion over the next religion is the message of that religion resonates with them. God sends out His message to attract those who’s will is moved by it.
So those who have a mind to be moved to embrace truth will be moved when they hear and read it. But to those who will be moved to believe a lie they will embrace it when they hear and read it.
Now does God want to spend eternity with people whose minds are set on embracing lies as truth? Who see good in evil?
So think of the message as a clever filtering process that weeds out all those who want to be weeded out, those who hate and mock the love of the truth.
It's brilliant when you think about it GS
So there we are, each man with his own religion--and no logical reason in the world for believing in any of the others, including yours. Doesn’t that make your god unjust?
If you cannot see then do not judge God to be unjust. No judge yourself to be lacking. The fault does not lie with God but with you.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-12-08, 08:20 AM
Hi GS
God sends out His message to attract those who’s will is moved by it.
Man sends out the message on behalf of God
Now does God want to spend eternity with people whose minds are set on embracing lies as truth? Who see good in evil?
God is portrayed as an agressor who should be feared.I can give you plenty of examples where it has (according to the bible)caused genocidal attrocities,and suffering to people but can't think of any examples of it doing anything nice.In fact God only seems to do evil things to mankind in the bible in the name of good?????????????????????
I can see evil in good.
nova900
02-12-08, 08:46 AM
Now does God want to spend eternity with people whose minds are set on embracing lies as truth? Who see good in evil?
So think of the message as a clever filtering process that weeds out all those who want to be weeded out, those who hate and mock the love of the truth.
What is the factor or criteria to determine "truth" other than a message just "resonating" with someone? What you see as good others may see as evil and vice versa.
From another faiths' standpoint you could be the one seen as mocking the love of the truth.
What evidence have you got to support your view ?
even today, there are people who can do astral projections and see stuff that science does not see yet. do you really think the ancient people just invented the idea of spirits without ever even seeing them? there's also photographic evidence of ghosts.
Because it might satisfy your psychological and emotional needs... which for most people is far more valuable than truth.
if truth is not valuable and useful, is it really truth?
even today, there are people who can do astral projections and see stuff that science does not see yet. do you really think the ancient people just invented the idea of spirits without ever even seeing them? there's also photographic evidence of ghosts.
if truth is not valuable and useful, is it really truth?
Look, I'm not asking for yet more statements; I simply want some evidence thatwhat you say is true because I do not believe it.
So, what evidence supports astral projection ?
What can some people see that the rest of us cannot ? How do you know.
Ancient people created spirts and gods because they had no other way of understanding Nature. I am frightened of lightening. What does it mean ? Look what it did to that tree or another man last week. Why does it happen ? Could it be because my tribe has done something wrong ? Ah, perhaps we should not have killed that animal, sowed that crop at the full moon and so on. Now, to avoid trouble, find a way of propitiating whatever is angry with us. If we kill an animal and give some part of to the gods we may avoid punishment. Maybe if we sowed our crops a few days earlier or later. And so on, and so on.
I have now described what I believe accounts for the birth of religion. Some people have still retained that primitive mindset; they won't walk under ladders, to give one of several examples I could mention.
Now if you look at religion today, what do you find. Catholics seeking forgiveness from a man in a box. Muslims facing Mecca and praying five times a day. Jews praying by reciting special word while bowing non-stop at a wall.
You can think of many more rituals for yourself. Can you see any connection with what I said about primitive people ?
To sum up, an individual can believe anything he/she wants, But if there is an intention to get others to share that belief, evidence must be provided.
Adstar, one simple question:
How do you know you are not being misled into believing in a false god ?
SnakeLord
02-12-08, 11:40 AM
I mean, there really is something to be said for that, that there is this inherent need to feel that we are not our own masters, that there is something greater than us watching over.
Clearly there isn't an inherent need. I feel no such thing, and i'm quite sure I am not alone in that.
Crunchy Cat
02-12-08, 12:22 PM
if truth is not valuable and useful, is it really truth?
You bet. For example, it is true that you will fart today; however, that knowledge holds utterly no value and usefulness to me.
sisyphus__
02-12-08, 12:36 PM
Wes would thourghly enjoy this topic.
Newsflash,
Here is an announcement from our sponsor, God.
The lake of fire is nothing like as bad asa man called Adstar makes it out to be. Once the skin cells have been destroyed and with them the nerve endings, pain will no longer be felt. It will be justa warm , cosy glow.
Personally I don't think humans can "know" anything. Ever. Not with the small and very limited minds we have. We can never know anything. We don't know with 100% surety that gravity exists, we don't know with 100% surety that an apple will fall everytime we drop it, we don't know with 100% surety that the sun is a giant ball of fire; we just "think" all of those things are true.
I also don't think humans could really ever believe anything with 100% belief. I don't think it's possible. We can generally "think" something is true, but we can never believe it true with 100% faith. That includes global warming, economic theories, and the existence of a god or gods. No one believes anything 100%. We can think that we believe something 100%, but we really don't.
So we can't "know" or "believe" anything with 100% surety. Any objections?
Personally I don't think humans can "know" anything. Ever. Not with the small and very limited minds we have. We can never know anything. We don't know with 100% surety that gravity exists, we don't know with 100% surety that an apple will fall everytime we drop it, we don't know with 100% surety that the sun is a giant ball of fire; we just "think" all of those things are true.
I also don't think humans could really ever believe anything with 100% belief. I don't think it's possible. We can generally "think" something is true, but we can never believe it true with 100% faith. That includes global warming, economic theories, and the existence of a god or gods. No one believes anything 100%. We can think that we believe something 100%, but we really don't.
So we can't "know" or "believe" anything with 100% surety. Any objections?
You don't think that humans can know anything. So how do you know that if. like the rest of us you cannot know anything ?
Good point, I really don't know if we don't know anything. But just because we don't know something doesn't mean it still can't be true or that there isn't any truth. There must be truth out there. If anything exists, then the statement "Something exists" must be true. Since "we" or at least our minds definitely exist (Cartesian theory or something?) then truth must exist as well.
UncleChrist
02-12-08, 06:11 PM
So we can't "know" or "believe" anything with 100% surety. Any objections?
Agreed NDS... I'm 99% sure you don't know anything
Now does God want to spend eternity with people whose minds are set on embracing lies as truth? Who see good in evil?
Apparently it wants to spend eternity with the most irrational naive fools on the planet.
So think of the message as a clever filtering process that weeds out all those who want to be weeded out, those who hate and mock the love of the truth.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/Delusion.html
:rolleyes:
SnakeLord
02-12-08, 06:47 PM
So think of the message as a clever filtering process that weeds out all those who want to be weeded out, those who hate and mock the love of the truth.
Doesn't seem like much of a "clever" filtering process to an entity that need not do any filtering or have any process given that he is supposedly omniscient. The whole 'filtering' nonsense is nothing but pointless idiocy.
Man sends out the message on behalf of God
God is portrayed as an agressor who should be feared.I can give you plenty of examples where it has (according to the bible)caused genocidal attrocities,and suffering to people but can't think of any examples of it doing anything nice.In fact God only seems to do evil things to mankind in the bible in the name of good?????????????????????
I can see evil in good.
So be it. You have read and declared God to be evil. You have made your free willed judgement. And you in turn will be judged for this judgement you have made.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
What is the factor or criteria to determine "truth" other than a message just "resonating" with someone?
The criteria is Gods will.
What you see as good others may see as evil and vice versa.
Of cource that is what i just been saying. But something cannot be good and evil at the same time from the view of God. Therefore let each one embrace what He loves and reject what He hates. God will make the truth clear to all when He deems the time to be right.
From another faiths' standpoint you could be the one seen as mocking the love of the truth.
No doubt about it. Yes they think the Message of the Gospel is evil and blasphemy, there is no "could be" about it, they indeed do hate the message of the gospel. And it is there free willed and heart felt decision to do so.
In the end we will find out who has love truth and who has loved evil. me, i am very confident of the truth of the Love of the Messiah Jesus. Others are confident in other teachings. So be it.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
stretched
02-12-08, 09:48 PM
So be it. You have read and declared God to be evil. You have made your free willed judgement. And you in turn will be judged for this judgement you have made.
Who or what gives you the authority to make that claim????
Who or what gives you the authority to make that claim????
I can make whatever claim i feel lead to make old boy. You can make whatever claim you feel like making too. Accept what you will. Reject what you will. But stop being a pathetic winger, whining about other people making claims.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
But something cannot be good and evil at the same time from the view of God.
from the view of the real god, good and evil are the same thing. two sides of one coin. otherwise he wouldn't have created evil, like he said he did, in the bible.
we see good and evil because we separated from god. the oneness was separated into yin and yang.
stretched
02-12-08, 10:15 PM
I can make whatever claim i feel lead to make old boy. You can make whatever claim you feel like making too. Accept what you will. Reject what you will. But stop being a pathetic winger, whining about other people making claims.
Oh. So its not like you have a DIRECT line from god substantiating your claims. OK :D
from the view of the real god, good and evil are the same thing. two sides of one coin. otherwise he wouldn't have created evil, like he said he did, in the bible.
we see good and evil because we separated from god. the oneness was separated into yin and yang.
i agree with you yorda. everything god has created is good and has a good purpose in his will, even evil. and there is a time and a place for everything.
Good point, I really don't know if we don't know anything. But just because we don't know something doesn't mean it still can't be true or that there isn't any truth. There must be truth out there. If anything exists, then the statement "Something exists" must be true. Since "we" or at least our minds definitely exist (Cartesian theory or something?) then truth must exist as well.
I think I see where you are coming from. Descartes practised what he called the methodod doubt. His idea was that he would doubt everything, including his own existence, till he found something that could not be doubted. This turned out to be his Cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am. He was only entitled to claim " there is thinking" but let's not split hairs.
From the "cogito" he proceeded to build an argument for god's existence, Descartes' argument was demolished by David Hume, and Kant. Descartes " proof"of god's existence has been rejected by all major philosophers.
Descartes did a lot of highly esteemed work in science and mathematics. If you have ever drawn a graph you will be familiar with Cartesian co-ordinates.
Truth exists in some sense but problems arise as to what is true,. We can say the earth is round; we know it to be true because we have evidence. God's existance cannot be proved . It is nothing more than a personal belief that lacks empirical evidence.
What I have said does not prove that god does not exist. There is no way that can be proved. But if one insists on empirical evidence to inform one's beliefs , then it's irrational to believe in god
UncleChrist
02-13-08, 02:21 PM
think we all know who was responsible for that, the Godless liberals who cannot stand having their immorality shoved back in their ugly face!! The defenders of free thought, the Big Bang theory and evolution, are not only striking out at me, but at all Christians. . Last night, while I was sitting on my front-porch swing, gazing up at Heaven, President Bush appeared to me in a vision. He told me that my work was not yet finished, there were still many liberals who had not yet seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!! President Bush would not be in the White House right now if God didn't want him there. President Bush was put in a position of leadership in order to wipe the devil's religion of Islam off the face of the Earth, so that the Christian God can fill the world with His message of peace and love. President Bush has stated numerous times that he speakes with God in the Oval Office, he even asked God for military advice before the invasion of Iraq. Modern liberalism is the equivalent of atheism, liberals are in favor of killing babies, raising taxes, teaching evolution, and same sex marriage. Jesus is opposed to all of these horrible things.
One might think that the above post from Truechristian is a prank
But .........
I talk face to face with people this brain dead way to often
:bugeye:
joepistole
02-13-08, 02:24 PM
I think science and religion or sprituality are basicly opposite ends of the same string. Both attempt to look into the face of God.
I think science and religion or sprituality are basicly opposite ends of the same string. Both attempt to look into the face of God.
Before looking into anyone's face you have to be satisfied he exists. So, how do you support your statement ?
joepistole
02-13-08, 03:24 PM
Both science and spirtuality seek knowledge of truth. Early in our history, religion and science were the same. Only in recent years have the two diverged...history 101. Who were the first astronomers, priests. Who were the first scientists, priests. Who were the keepers of knowledge in the Dark Ages, priests. Who were the first medical experts, priests.
jayleew
02-13-08, 04:26 PM
I think science and religion or sprituality are basicly opposite ends of the same string. Both attempt to look into the face of God.
I don't agree with this at all. First off, religion and spirituality are two different things. Any and all three of these things can coexist on any end of the same string (the truth). Honestly, I don't think science or religion have the complete picture, but religion is becoming out-dated.
I still have hope for spirituality. We all want answers for the questions that science has not answered, or not completely tested (or perhaps can't be fully tested).
However, it is easy to reasonably dismiss spirituality for a bad piece of meat in the stomach because of science.
I am curious about if there is an afterlife and things like souls. I hope science can prove a case someday. It is difficult for me...this faith vs reason, because reason always wins.
joepistole
02-13-08, 04:30 PM
I don't agree with this at all. First off, religion and spirituality are two different things. Any and all three of these things can coexist on any end of the same string (the truth). Honestly, I don't think science or religion have the complete picture, but religion is becoming out-dated.
I still have hope for spirituality. We all want answers for the questions that science has not answered, or not completely tested (or perhaps can't be fully tested).
However, it is easy to reasonably dismiss spirituality for a bad piece of meat in the stomach because of science.
I am curious about if there is an afterlife and things like souls. I hope science can prove a case someday. It is difficult for me...this faith vs reason, because reason always wins.
I would argue, religion is man's version of a how to guide to sprituality. Since it is man's intrepretation and device, it is failable and subject to coruption.
I would also agree that our science is very limited. We have a very limited knowledge of the universe. And since we are so very limited, we cannot rule out the existence of God. For a truely rational skeptic, the best he can ever do is agnostism.
Both science and spirtuality seek knowledge of truth. Early in our history, religion and science were the same. Only in recent years have the two diverged...history 101. Who were the first astronomers, priests. Who were the first scientists, priests. Who were the keepers of knowledge in the Dark Ages, priests. Who were the first medical experts, priests.
Why do you think they have diverged ? I'd say it's because superstition has been superseded by science.
We also had ans still have wirch doctors, shamans and so on. Are they all right too ?
Go to hell.
Don't encourage him; you know there is no such place. You could say " Go to the dogs" and he might do that in light of what he says in his hysterical post.
stretched
02-13-08, 05:38 PM
I know for a fact that if atheism-Bolshevism got the upper hand in america,’
, ‘I should either be hanging from the nearest lamppost or locked up in
some cellar or other. So the question for me is not whether or not I want to
undertake this or that, but whether or not we succeed in preventing a atheism -Bolshevik
take-over. I myself have the blind faith that our CRISTIAN movement will win
through. We began2000 years ago with 12 men,’Today
I can say with confidence that our cause will prevail.’
believed that the AMERICAN people needed ‘a monarch-like idol’ – but not
some mild-mannered king, so much as a ‘full-blooded and ruthless ruler,’ a
dictator who would rule with an iron hand, like Oliver Cromwell.It is something
like training a dog: first it is given to a tough handler, and then, when
it has been put through the hoops, it is turned over to a friendly owner
whom it will serve with all the greater loyalty and devotion.’
I always used to regard antiATHEISM as inhumane, but now my own experiences
have converted me into the most fanatical enemy of ATHEISM:
ATHEISTS as born destroyers, not rulers at all; they had neither culture, nor art,nor architecture of their own, ‘the surest expression of a people’s culture.’
They are just
calculators. That explains why only ATHEITS could have founded Marxism, which
negates and destroys the very basis of all culture. With their Marxism, the
ATHEITS hoped to create a broad mindless mass of plebs without any real intelligence,
a gormless instrument in their hands.’
Now theres something you don`t see every day. :D
stretched
02-13-08, 05:47 PM
The dangers, oh the dangers of Faith vs Reason...
[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]
This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god
if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state
Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she'll always be like this
god tests every one of us [emphasis added]
theSAVED, Penny Arcade [Comments (239)] [2007-Jan-14]
(from: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1)
from another true Christian :( Scary innit?
The dangers, oh the dangers of Faith vs Reason...
(from: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1)
from another true Christian :( Scary innit?
That reminds me of something I read in a railway station waiting room. It wa an article in the Christian Science Monitor, To cut to the chase.
Peggy goes for a ride on her new bike, She falls off and cuts her knee which bleeds badly. She runs home , crying all the way. Mummy explains that there is no illness , only the absence of good. Mummy fetches Bible and reads to Peggy. They pray together and lo and behold when she looks at her kne the cut has vanished.
joepistole
02-13-08, 09:50 PM
Why do you think they have diverged ? I'd say it's because superstition has been superseded by science.
We also had ans still have wirch doctors, shamans and so on. Are they all right too ?
Myles, this is not my point. My point is religion and science have the same objective, to know the truth of our existence. Religion and science have different methodologies, but both seek truth. That is my point. They shared the same orgin and serve the same end.
It was not superstition that put together the calendar. It was not supersitition that allowed priests to successfully perform brain surgery. It was not supersitition that allowed priests to predict future astronomical events. IT was not superstition that told the priests when to tell the farmers to plant their crops.
I think you are getting lost, where a lot of religious people get lost. They get lost in the details of the quest. There are many religious and atheists who get lost in the words and in the details. They loose site of the quest.
Your comment about witch doctors and shamman misses the point. There is no right or wrong in this respect, there is knowledge. We can only see less than 5 percent of our universe and some of us act as if we know it all. We know almost nothing! I suspect, the universe is far more wonderous than anything we can even conceive.
As I tried to point out, if you are an atheist, you are guilty of the same passions and illogical reasoning you accuse of people of religion. At best, an honest rational skeptic can only be agnostic.
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-14-08, 04:13 AM
Before looking into anyone's face you have to be satisfied he exists. So, how do you support your statement ?
just because something exists it doesn't make it real.
If God(or the ethic's of God) did not exist then you would not be writting about it on this thread because the thread would not exist. the fact that you are arguing about it means it has to exist for you to argue about it.
SO GOD EXISTS, BUT HE IS NOT REAL
An athiest cannot say God does not exist because it does (in the form of belief).
A christian cannot say God is real because it is a concept it is not possible for it to be real (this has been proven in history).
again you use the word exist??????
existence has nothing to do with reality, Wilma Flintstone exists but I can't take her out for a drink can you not see the difference between reality and existence????????????????????????????????????????? :shrug:
Myles, this is not my point. My point is religion and science have the same objective, to know the truth of our existence. Religion and science have different methodologies, but both seek truth. That is my point. They shared the same orgin and serve the same end.
It was not superstition that put together the calendar. It was not supersitition that allowed priests to successfully perform brain surgery. It was not supersitition that allowed priests to predict future astronomical events. IT was not superstition that told the priests when to tell the farmers to plant their crops.
I think you are getting lost, where a lot of religious people get lost. They get lost in the details of the quest. There are many religious and atheists who get lost in the words and in the details. They loose site of the quest.
Your comment about witch doctors and shamman misses the point. There is no right or wrong in this respect, there is knowledge. We can only see less than 5 percent of our universe and some of us act as if we know it all. We know almost nothing! I suspect, the universe is far more wonderous than anything we can even conceive.
As I tried to point out, if you are an atheist, you are guilty of the same passions and illogical reasoning you accuse of people of religion. At best, an honest rational skeptic can only be agnostic.
The calendar was put together as a result of observation and reasoning, which is part of the scientific process. In that sense you could regard it as early science which has developed and is now more sophisticated.
So as far as early activities of a similar nature are concerned, it is fair to say they were using elementary science which had nothing to do with superstition.
As far as religion is concerned, it attempts to gain knowledge but its claims are not open to empirical verification. Thus, I regard it as an advanced form of superstition, if such a thing is possible. If someone else choose to take a religious view, that is entirely up to them. It all boils down to whether one demands empirical evidence or is satisfied with explanations based on speculation.
I suggest, therfore that we are not talking about divergence; its a matter of two methodologies operating in parallel.
Finally, we are all aware that our knowledge is limited but that does not mean that we should fill the gaps with gods, so to speak. You are not making allowance for progress, something which is clearly evident from the history of science. Gods are being ousted from the gaps as we continue to make progress.
just because something exists it doesn't make it real.
If God(or the ethic's of God) did not exist then you would not be writting about it on this thread because the thread would not exist. the fact that you are arguing about it means it has to exist for you to argue about it.
SO GOD EXISTS, BUT HE IS NOT REAL
An athiest cannot say God does not exist because it does (in the form of belief).
A christian cannot say God is real because it is a concept it is not possible for it to be real (this has been proven in history).
again you use the word exist??????
existence has nothing to do with reality, Wilma Flintstone exists but I can't take her out for a drink can you not see the difference between reality and existence????????????????????????????????????????? :shrug:
What you say is obviously true, but would you pray to Wilma Flintsone. claim miricales on her behalf, explain what she expects of us in terms of our behaviour ? I don't think so. But the majority of people who believe in god are not thinking of existence in the sense of Wilma; they believe god exists and that he will literally reward and punish us and so on. In this sense there is a lot to argue about.
Try persuading a few Christians to accept that god is no more than a mental construct and see how they respond ! I think you know what will happen. So, in terms of the debate about god , your distinction between existence as a reality and a mental is irrelevant.
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-14-08, 08:04 AM
What you say is obviously true, but would you pray to Wilma Flintsone. claim miricales on her behalf, explain what she expects of us in terms of our behaviour ? I don't think so. But the majority of people who believe in god are not thinking of existence in the sense of Wilma; they believe god exists and that he will literally reward and punish us and so on. In this sense there is a lot to argue about.
In using wilma it was supposed to be reasoning that the same problem why God cannont show itself is the same reason why wilma cannot go for a drink with me.
Try persuading a few Christians to accept that god is no more than a mental construct and see how they respond ! I think you know what will happen. So, in terms of the debate about god , your distinction between existence as a reality and a mental is irrelevant..
I agree with this, the shame is that it is an excellent contstruct if it is seen in the light but the distinction betweeen existence in the physial and existance in the mental is where the problem lies and it is the two sides the argument stands.
if i didn't exist then we wouldn't be writing on this thread as it would not exist
In using wilma it was supposed to be reasoning that the same problem why God cannont show itself is the same reason why wilma cannot go for a drink with me.
.
I agree with this, the shame is that it is an excellent contstruct if it is seen in the light but the distinction betweeen existence in the physial and existance in the mental is where the problem lies and it is the two sides the argument stands.
if i didn't exist then we wouldn't be writing on this thread as it would not exist
I suggest your reasoning is wrong here. Both parties woul agree that they have a mental concept of god. A theist insists that he knows his concept is an idea of a real, living entity who will answer prayer, perform miracles and so on. It's this idea og god that is argued about, not the mental consteucy.
So, in your terms I can say I have one god and that he exists as a mental construct ONLY. A theist will disagrre because he believes his mental consteuct is a reflerction a reality. In that swnse he can be said to have ywo gods.
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-14-08, 08:55 AM
I suggest your reasoning is wrong here. Both parties woul agree that they have a mental concept of god. A theist insists that he knows his concept is an idea of a real, living entity who will answer prayer, perform miracles and so on. It's this idea og god that is argued about, not the mental consteucy.
So, in your terms I can say I have one god and that he exists as a mental construct ONLY. A theist will disagrre because he believes his mental consteuct is a reflerction a reality. In that swnse he can be said to have ywo gods.
O.K.
Just looked up theism and it seems like fanatical christianism to me.
To me these people who still take the literal word for word meaning of the bible, biblical evolution e.t.c. are just fearful, just as belief in God was forced under pain of death (but as you were killed in the name of God it cleansed your soul),people who believe in God are probably just as scared now more than ever to come out of their bubble of belief and enter the future world. In the same way a child lost in the mall would be scared, frightened with the realisation their parent is not there to protect them.
I see how my reasoning may have seemed off now.
But I say to all belivers in God to ask what has it done for mankind which could be deemed as an unselfish act or an act with out attrocities, i've looked and found none???
jayleew
02-14-08, 09:06 AM
As far as religion is concerned, it attempts to gain knowledge but its claims are not open to empirical verification.
Myles, good post, but you give religion too much credit. If only that were true that religion seeks truth! Religion's teachings is that all things that are knowable have been presented in a book. Anything, outside the covers is heresy and difficult (next to impossible) to be assimilated. Christianity, for instance treats the Bible as the cornerstone of their faith. Now, that was unintended maybe, but over time people forgot that Jesus should be the cornerstone. So, they stopped seeking for truth anywhere except in the Bible. It's so narrow-minded, that I don't know why God would not be insulted. If I become a Christian again (or maybe I still am), it will be because God impacted my life undeniably, and my evidence would not come from a book. Just imagine if Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago and people tested his knowledge and he said, "The scriptures say ...." and stopped there. No, supposedly he came and said, "The scriptures say ... But, I say..."
Well, my point is that today all religion says is, "The scriptures say..." Not to say any man should put themselves in the place of a god, but they should be scientists.
joepistole
02-14-08, 09:20 AM
Religion's teachings is that all things that are knowable have been presented in a book. Anything, outside the covers is heresy and difficult (next to impossible) to be assimilated. Christianity, for instance treats the Bible as the cornerstone of their faith. Now, that was unintended maybe, but over time people forgot that Jesus should be the cornerstone. So, they stopped seeking for truth anywhere except in the Bible.."
First, the Bible does not say all things knowable are within its bindings. Jesus himself referred many times to the mysteries that were not for general consumption of the masses. And it is well known that Jesus frequently spoke in parables. This was done as part of a tradition in oral teaching...it encourages those to whom the message is being communicated to think about the message, and to look at things in different lights.
Please do not confuse the man's corruption with religion.
jayleew
02-14-08, 09:43 AM
First, the Bible does not say all things knowable are within its bindings. Jesus himself referred many times to the mysteries that were not for general consumption of the masses. And it is well known that Jesus frequently spoke in parables. This was done as part of a tradition in oral teaching...it encourages those to whom the message is being communicated to think about the message, and to look at things in different lights.
Please do not confuse the man's corruption with religion.
I said "religion's teachings is that all things are knowable" and Jesus is making my point.
Just as you say, religion is corrupted...it's broken. It is no longer the search for truth as it was in the past. Perhaps religion is backpeddling, but instead religion needs to break through.
But, my point was is that I disagree with your statement that both science and religion search for the truth.
joepistole
02-14-08, 09:51 AM
I said "religion's teachings is that all things are knowable" and Jesus is making my point.
Just as you say, religion is corrupted...it's broken. It is no longer the search for truth as it was in the past. Perhaps religion is backpeddling, but instead religion needs to break through.
But, my point was is that I disagree with your statement that both science and religion search for the truth.
I apologize for misunderstanding. However, I think there is religion as designed and intended and religion as practiced by some individuals. And I think that has always been the case. One needs to be careful of the latter, as religion becomes a tool for the pursuit of earthly power and not spritual enlightenment.
I might also caution against scientific arrogance...it too may impeed knowledge and rational thought.
O.K.
Just looked up theism and it seems like fanatical christianism to me.
To me these people who still take the literal word for word meaning of the bible, biblical evolution e.t.c. are just fearful, just as belief in God was forced under pain of death (but as you were killed in the name of God it cleansed your soul),people who believe in God are probably just as scared now more than ever to come out of their bubble of belief and enter the future world. In the same way a child lost in the mall would be scared, frightened with the realisation their parent is not there to protect them.
I see how my reasoning may have seemed off now.
But I say to all belivers in God to ask what has it done for mankind which could be deemed as an unselfish act or an act with out attrocities, i've looked and found none???
Can I suggest you could find a better use for you time, I can give you a short comprehensive answer but don't look for logic.
God is responsible for all the lovely things. Flowers, llittle birds praising him is song, sunshine and so on.
All the nasty things are due to man's sinful nature. We are born in sin because of what Adam and Eve got up to. Dont say it's unfair. God is love and god is righteous. You will be forgiven and avoid being thrown onto the lake of fire, if you repent and take esus as your saviour.
That's it.
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-14-08, 03:44 PM
God is responsible for all the lovely things. Flowers, llittle birds praising him is song, sunshine and so on.
All the nasty things are due to man's sinful nature. We are born in sin because of what Adam and Eve got up to. Dont say it's unfair. God is love and god is righteous. You will be forgiven and avoid being thrown onto the lake of fire, if you repent and take esus as your saviour.
That's it.
O.K. dude on that river my boat don't float
Why does God want us to pray to him? If he knows our thoughts already, what's the point?
Like any good doctor, he wants a second opinion
Myles, good post, but you give religion too much credit. If only that were true that religion seeks truth! Religion's teachings is that all things that are knowable have been presented in a book. Anything, outside the covers is heresy and difficult (next to impossible) to be assimilated. Christianity, for instance treats the Bible as the cornerstone of their faith. Now, that was unintended maybe, but over time people forgot that Jesus should be the cornerstone. So, they stopped seeking for truth anywhere except in the Bible. It's so narrow-minded, that I don't know why God would not be insulted. If I become a Christian again (or maybe I still am), it will be because God impacted my life undeniably, and my evidence would not come from a book. Just imagine if Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago and people tested his knowledge and he said, "The scriptures say ...." and stopped there. No, supposedly he came and said, "The scriptures say ... But, I say..."
Well, my point is that today all religion says is, "The scriptures say..." Not to say any man should put themselves in the place of a god, but they should be scientists.
Yoy are absolutelty right. I shall give myself a good kicking for overlooking that. I have spoken about the nonsense of scripture in the past/ On the other hand people do turn to their holy books to seek answers which they regard as truth
First, the Bible does not say all things knowable are within its bindings. Jesus himself referred many times to the mysteries that were not for general consumption of the masses. And it is well known that Jesus frequently spoke in parables. This was done as part of a tradition in oral teaching...it encourages those to whom the message is being communicated to think about the message, and to look at things in different lights.
Please do not confuse the man's corruption with religion.
So, why did god create the masses who would not understand his mysteries or, for that matter, mysteries that could not be understood by the masses ? Seems perverse to me.
I have always been told that all men were created equal and in the image of god. So, how do you explain the idea of the "masses". Are they made in the imperfect image of god ? Does it make sense to you ?
"Jesus spoke in parables" If you accept that a parable is a story whose purpose is to illustrate a point, then Hans Christian Andersen spoke in parables, as did Aesop, La Fontaine and the Brothers Grimm to mention a few. In what sense is Jesus' parables superior ?
R U JOHN HAGEE MAD TEXAN PREACHER
HA, HA!! THAT FAT LITTLE FUCKER!!! "HOMASEXUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULS..."
joepistole
02-14-08, 09:54 PM
So, why did god create the masses who would not understand his mysteries or, for that matter, mysteries that could not be understood by the masses ? Seems perverse to me.
I have always been told that all men were created equal and in the image of god. So, how do you explain the idea of the "masses". Are they made in the imperfect image of god ? Does it make sense to you ?
"Jesus spoke in parables" If you accept that a parable is a story whose purpose is to illustrate a point, then Hans Christian Andersen spoke in parables, as did Aesop, La Fontaine and the Brothers Grimm to mention a few. In what sense is Jesus' parables superior ?
All very good questions Myles. I have asked myself the same questions. It would seem a whole lot easier and a lot more clear, if God just came out with it and made an annoucment on that big PA in the sky.
But that is not his way, the value is not in being there. It is in getting there. God is both chaos and order, perfection and imperfection...though to be honest perfection and imperfection are terms more for human comprehension than meaningful terms for God. God exists in a place of unlimited potential. We are an expression of some of that potential. The value we add with our lives is in our journey. The scriptures, the guidance they provide help us along the way.
Parables are stories to illustrate a point. They use symbols to communicate ideas in a more complex and multidimensional way. Throughout history, there has been the religion of the masses and there have been mystery cults active behind religions. There are those who can only handle religion in certian ways, they have no need or desire for higher levels of understanding. They like truthful, but basic understanding and there is nothing wrong with that. Others will want more. And that is why there have always been and still are mystery cults behind most major western religions.
All very good questions Myles. I have asked myself the same questions. It would seem a whole lot easier and a lot more clear, if God just came out with it and made an annoucment on that big PA in the sky.
But that is not his way, the value is not in being there. It is in getting there. God is both chaos and order, perfection and imperfection...though to be honest perfection and imperfection are terms more for human comprehension than meaningful terms for God. God exists in a place of unlimited potential. We are an expression of some of that potential. The value we add with our lives is in our journey. The scriptures, the guidance they provide help us along the way.
Parables are stories to illustrate a point. They use symbols to communicate ideas in a more complex and multidimensional way. Throughout history, there has been the religion of the masses and there have been mystery cults active behind religions. There are those who can only handle religion in certian ways, they have no need or desire for higher levels of understanding. They like truthful, but basic understanding and there is nothing wrong with that. Others will want more. And that is why there have always been and still are mystery cults behind most major western religions.
I think you are talking of two levels of bs. The masses fart, the elect flatulate.
How did you come by all this knoledge of god ?
joepistole
02-15-08, 01:21 PM
I think you are talking of two levels of bs. The masses fart, the elect flatulate.
How did you come by all this knoledge of god ?
You are funny Myles! He speaks to me at night. How else do you think I get this good stuff :). In addition, I am a member of one of those mystery cults/organizations, and I have been a student of the subject for a number of years. The God vs No God question has been on my mind since high school. It has been my personal quest if you will.
There are a number of good texts on the subject. People too often think of God as a limited being within a single universe, our universe. God is much larger than just our universe. God exists in a place without space and time. He exists in all universes. I ask you Myles to think about what it would be like to exist in a place without space and without time. What would that be like?
UncleChrist
02-15-08, 01:24 PM
God is simply represented by the infinite amount of nonsense one can know about absolutely nothing.
The core issue is that supernaturalism is inherently hostile to intellectual freedom
A god that needs or a god that wants is a god that lacks.
none of these so called gods ever seem to have what I would consider god like qualities
joepistole
02-15-08, 01:33 PM
God is simply represented by the infinite amount of nonsense one can know about absolutely nothing.
The core issue is that supernaturalism is inherently hostile to intellectual freedom
A god that needs or a god that wants is a god that lacks.
none of these so called gods ever seem to have what I would consider god like qualities
Believe what you wish Uncle, but religion in it's highest form is supreme reason and logic. In lesser and corrupt forms, I would agree with you in that it could hinder reason and logic. It is like any tool we use. Used correctly, it is valuable, misused and it can cause destruction.
Believe what you wish Uncle, but religion in it's highest form is supreme reason and logic. In lesser and corrupt forms, I would agree with you in that it could hinder reason and logic. It is like any tool we use. Used correctly, it is valuable, misused and it can cause destruction.
I have yet to come across anything remotely logical in religion. How about giving us an example ?
joepistole
02-15-08, 04:27 PM
Ok, lets start with the book of Genesis. One of the main characters in Genesis is the first man, Adam. Today, through modern genetics we are able to prove beyond a doubt that there was indeed a first man. The Penatuch (Old Testiment) predicted and named the first man. We are just now able to verify that the genetic record supports the fact that there was a first man. A single first man to whom we are all related.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0624_050624_spencerwells.html
sowhatifit'sdark
02-15-08, 04:44 PM
I have yet to come across anything remotely logical in religion. How about giving us an example ?
Meditation.
Ok, lets start with the book of Genesis. One of the main characters in Genesis is the first man, Adam. Today, through modern genetics we are able to prove beyond a doubt that there was indeed a first man. The Penatuch (Old Testiment) predicted and named the first man. We are just now able to verify that the genetic record supports the fact that there was a first man. A single first man to whom we are all related.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0624_050624_spencerwells.html
I was not aware that Genesis is based on genetics. My understanding is that those who believe Genesis to be literally true are against evolutionary theory which has the support of scientists and informed people all over the world.
How could the OT predict the first man when it was not written till donkeys' years after Adam and Eve were said to have been created?
Meditation.
I am not sure where you are coming from. I have not practised meditation but my understanding is that it is a form of introspection, or withdrawing of the senses - what I would call sensory deprivation.
I have read of experiments on Zen monks who showed a remarkable ability to control their bodies in various way and in which their brain states were recorded. But I cannot see how logic enters into it. What am I overlooking ?
sowhatifit'sdark
02-15-08, 11:11 PM
I am not sure where you are coming from. I have not practised meditation but my understanding is that it is a form of introspection, or withdrawing of the senses - what I would call sensory deprivation.
I have read of experiments on Zen monks who showed a remarkable ability to control their bodies in various way and in which their brain states were recorded. But I cannot see how logic enters into it. What am I overlooking ?
It was actually a fairly empirical process. they tried it, they felt better, they suggested it to others, they felt better. Now science has backed up a wide range of benefits. The logic was moving from the intuition that this might be useful, to noticing that it was found to be useful - pleasurable, destressing, relaxing, concentration improving, whatever - and suggesting that more people try it. That is logical.
joepistole
02-16-08, 01:02 AM
I was not aware that Genesis is based on genetics. My understanding is that those who believe Genesis to be literally true are against evolutionary theory which has the support of scientists and informed people all over the world.
How could the OT predict the first man when it was not written till donkeys' years after Adam and Eve were said to have been created?
The Old Testiment is not based on genetics. It is the work of revelation. My point was that the Bible said there was a first man and a first woman. It is a fact that is now supported by science and was first revealed in the Bible.
How people interpret Genesis is another story. Remember, I said there is a tendency for religion to be corrupted. Remember I said some people get lost in the words. The Bible is primarily a spiritual document and should not be intrepreted in a literal fashion as many do. But regardless, the Bible came to the conclusion that there was a first man and a first woman. Science and the Bible come to that conclusion with different methods, but they are both in agreement.
The New Testiment is a virtual owners guide to human behavior...explaining how we should behave not for God's benefit but for our own benefit. The act of worship, the rituals are not for God..although we do them in his name. They are in fact for us.
Remember also, that I said the Bible is about truth. I think many times our ability to reason is severely impared by our current lack of knowledge...our reasoning skills are very limited. We too often try to apply our linear reasoning skills to situations that require quantum reasoning skills.
It was actually a fairly empirical process. they tried it, they felt better, they suggested it to others, they felt better. Now science has backed up a wide range of benefits. The logic was moving from the intuition that this might be useful, to noticing that it was found to be useful - pleasurable, destressing, relaxing, concentration improving, whatever - and suggesting that more people try it. That is logical.
Well. if you put it that way.....
The Old Testiment is not based on genetics. It is the work of revelation. My point was that the Bible said there was a first man and a first woman. It is a fact that is now supported by science and was first revealed in the Bible.
How people interpret Genesis is another story. Remember, I said there is a tendency for religion to be corrupted. Remember I said some people get lost in the words. The Bible is primarily a spiritual document and should not be intrepreted in a literal fashion as many do. But regardless, the Bible came to the conclusion that there was a first man and a first woman. Science and the Bible come to that conclusion with different methods, but they are both in agreement.
The New Testiment is a virtual owners guide to human behavior...explaining how we should behave not for God's benefit but for our own benefit. The act of worship, the rituals are not for God..although we do them in his name. They are in fact for us.
Remember also, that I said the Bible is about truth. I think many times our ability to reason is severely impared by our current lack of knowledge...our reasoning skills are very limited. We too often try to apply our linear reasoning skills to situations that require quantum reasoning skills.
In short, you're saying that the Bible has been revealed but we must not take it literally. That make it worthless in my view. Science doesn't say there was a first man as you suggest; quite the opposite, it proves that man had precursors. So the Bible is wrong.
joepistole
02-16-08, 07:42 PM
In short, you're saying that the Bible has been revealed but we must not take it literally. That make it worthless in my view. Science doesn't say there was a first man as you suggest; quite the opposite, it proves that man had precursors. So the Bible is wrong.
Myles, modern genetics does say there was a first man and a first woman. That is the evidence. That does not mean that there were not precursors. Please show me where science says there was no first man. I showed you the link to legitimate scientific site that said otherwise.
sowhatifit'sdark
02-16-08, 08:09 PM
Interconnectedness of life forms - from native american religions, amongst other.
Oh. So its not like you have a DIRECT line from god substantiating your claims. OK :D
I believe i do have a link to God, I have the Holy Spirit.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
shaman_
02-17-08, 04:55 AM
Myles, modern genetics does say there was a first man and a first woman. That is the evidence. That does not mean that there were not precursors. Please show me where science says there was no first man. I showed you the link to legitimate scientific site that said otherwise.No you are cherry picking through this evidence so that it matches your religious text. The 'adam' referred to in that article has nothing in common with the adam in the bible.
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-17-08, 07:22 AM
:roflmao:Ok, lets start with the book of Genesis. One of the main characters in Genesis is the first man, Adam. Today, through modern genetics we are able to prove beyond a doubt that there was indeed a first man. The Penatuch (Old Testiment) predicted and named the first man. We are just now able to verify that the genetic record supports the fact that there was a first man. A single first man to whom we are all related.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0624_050624_spencerwells.html
What about the genetic lines that have not survived?????
In 1854,a turkish scholar,Hurumuzd Rassam,discoverd the remnants of a library of clay tablets in the ruins of Nineveh,the capital of ancient assyria-a library that had beed collected by the last great Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal,about 650 bc. In 1873 the english Assyriologist George Smith discovered clay tablets giving legendary accounts of a flood so like the story of Noah that it became clear that much of the first part of the book of genesis was based on Babylonian legend. Presumably, the Jews picked up the legends during their Babylonian captivity in the time of Nebuchadnezzar.
I don't see how it can prove that there was a first man, it will just be able to trace back to the furthest point allowable I don't see how you can prove that we are related to someone without having their DNA if you had Adams DNA you could by recognition of similarities trace the living blood line but without Adams DNA you are just tracing mankinds bloodline back to the furthest point scientificaly proveable then usin a leap of faith to fill in the gaps which leads you to the result you want???????
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-17-08, 07:29 AM
Myles, modern genetics does say there was a first man and a first woman. That is the evidence. That does not mean that there were not precursors. Please show me where science says there was no first man. I showed you the link to legitimate scientific site that said otherwise.
SCIENCE also says we evolved from monkeys?????????????
SCIENCE also says we evolved from neanderthal??????????
SCIENCE said the world was flat?????????????????????????
SCIENCE says we evovled from out of the seas????????????
Science says alot of things, and if you look you can find scientific fact which will back most theories no matter how ridiculous, you need to look at the proof for and against to give an insight if, you just look for evidence to support what you think, you will not see the whole puzzle just a few peices,which are used to decide how the finished picture should look.
joepistole
02-18-08, 01:44 AM
This is what I have been talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feXeL-3XA&feature=related
with all due respect, I think you guys are getting lost again.
station9
02-18-08, 04:07 AM
science never said we evolved from monkeys... sciences states that things grow change and morph into other things... great example.. a caterpillar goes into hibernation or what not... then evolves into a butterfly. evolution.. viruses die out after being exposed to antibodies.. but evolves into another strand and becomes a super virus.. evolution... not all things have to be what we come from but what the def. of evolution is.. most scientists take into account that philosophy has more weight than actual hard evidence.. its the most challenging thing to man kind... if it was as simple as saying.. god created man to do his bidding... would mean that we wouldnt do anything but wat god wanted.. instead we evolved to learn and morph into intelligent beings..
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-18-08, 04:26 AM
science never said we evolved from monkeys... sciences states that things grow change and morph into other things... great example.. a caterpillar goes into hibernation or what not... then evolves into a butterfly. evolution.. viruses die out after being exposed to antibodies.. but evolves into another strand and becomes a super virus.. evolution... not all things have to be what we come from but what the def. of evolution is.. most scientists take into account that philosophy has more weight than actual hard evidence.. its the most challenging thing to man kind... if it was as simple as saying.. god created man to do his bidding... would mean that we wouldnt do anything but wat god wanted.. instead we evolved to learn and morph into intelligent beings..
SCIENCE did say we evolved from monkeys i've just typed in a random selection,
evolution man
evolution of man
darwin
darwinian
monkey to man
ape to man
there is hundreds of examples of science stating that we evolved from monkeys or apes. science is not always right
joepistole
02-18-08, 08:42 AM
SCIENCE did say we evolved from monkeys i've just typed in a random selection,
evolution man
evolution of man
darwin
darwinian
monkey to man
ape to man
there is hundreds of examples of science stating that we evolved from monkeys or apes. science is not always right
No Pinocchio, you need to check your facts. Science says man and ape have a common ancestor but are two different branches of the same tree. Science does not say man evolved from ape.
station9
02-18-08, 08:12 PM
exactly its a hypothetical analogy that when you look at another being... "ape or monkey" you see common traits.. not necessarily meaning that we came from them or where them.. but we share similarities... ill name a few things we have in common.. ability to walk.. ability to sign.. most humans cant but it is a form of communication. now to tell what we dont have in common.. ape are unable to walk straight up.. no support.. odd placement of thumbs... HAIR ALL OVER THE PLACE.. face more together...
spidergoat
02-18-08, 08:38 PM
To be more exact, humans are a kind of ape. We are large primates without tails. The major difference is brain size, but we seemed to have separated from our ape ancestors long before our brains grew so large.
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-19-08, 09:15 AM
No Pinocchio, you need to check your facts. Science says man and ape have a common ancestor but are two different branches of the same tree. Science does not say man evolved from ape.
I think you should look up PITHECOMETRA PRINCIPLE or THESIS, and thomas huxley.
I think personaly that we must have evolved from neanderthal.Apes or monkeys I don't believe it
I was trying to make a point that science can be wrong, the post 71 says we can prove the existence of Adam or first man, in post 83 I've put some historical facts about genesis, how can science prove that stories based on babylonian legends are true???????????
maybe it can prove that Pinocchio was in fact turned into a donkey????
jayleew
02-19-08, 10:21 AM
How could the OT predict the first man when it was not written till donkeys' years after Adam and Eve were said to have been created?
Not that it makes any sense, but Genesis was written by Moses, who had a revelation...supposedly from God, who explained to him the beginnings of mankind and all creation.
jayleew
02-19-08, 10:29 AM
I have yet to come across anything remotely logical in religion. How about giving us an example ?
"Let the man who is without sin cast the first stone."
"Thou shalt not kill."
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's"
There is a boatload of philosophical arguments which supports its own system of ethics. However, like all arguments which support ideals, they can be debated. And, I would debate some of the arguments.
joepistole
02-19-08, 10:32 AM
Jayleew, who cares? God cares, your brothers and sisters care. You are not alone.
jayleew
02-19-08, 10:44 AM
But regardless, the Bible came to the conclusion that there was a first man and a first woman. Science and the Bible come to that conclusion with different methods, but they are both in agreement.
I agree with that both Science's and the Bible's statements of fact COULD be interpretted as pointing to the same conclusions. But, if we are to accept the Bible in a less literal fashion, how can we trust every inclination others have about their own revelations?
How do we know when the line is crossed, and the text has been grossly misinterpretted? That is dangerous, a good example of this is the Crusades.
I realize that the first Christians debated things, and that is good, a spiritual religion should always question tradition and doctrine. That's what peterves me about today's religion, they are not that way at all...but if they were, how could we hope to believe in something concrete if it is always changing...we can't believe in false hope. Religion is a double-edged sword without an entity within this reality dictating truth. So far, we don't have that. Supposedly the Holy Spirit, but come on...it is the Holy Spirit that is in question. There are so many factors that can come into play that affect the mind, how can we believe in the Holy Spirit?
This is where reason is master...you would have an easier time persuading me to believe in God if you can prove that the Holy Spirit exists. And that is next to impossible. We can't even prove if ghosts really exist or not. So, I don't believe in ghosts.
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-19-08, 10:52 AM
Not that it makes any sense, but Genesis was written by Moses, who had a revelation...supposedly from God, who explained to him the beginnings of mankind and all creation.
GENESIS was a collection of babylonian legends, written by the jews.
and is a collection of stories not 1 story. there is proof of this in the libary of ashurbanipal??
If we are to believe moses word for word does that mean all christians have been condemed to hell.........thuo shalt not worship any icon or idol????????
moses was around well before jesus ( genesis was written around 650 Bc)
so by worshiping a man on a cross have they missed the point in the concept of the word of God (living in harmony with each other) and in fact not upheld his commandments??? thou shalt not kill.....the crusades,the inquisition and now the middle east is separating in to a war of two sides christian and muslim
Saquist
02-19-08, 11:04 AM
If we are to believe moses word for word does that mean all christians have been condemed to hell.........thuo shalt not worship any icon or idol????????
That's exactly what that means. worshiping Idols is against the Christian or Jewish loyal to God. But this should show you have far Christianity has deviated from God's word.
If you find contradictions then you've not found a true teaching...and that's typically what tradition does to a teaching.
jayleew
02-19-08, 11:26 AM
GENESIS was a collection of babylonian legends, written by the jews.
and is a collection of stories not 1 story.
You are technically correct, Moses physically could not have authored Genesis. In fact, there is evidence that multiple authors wrote the collection. However, it is accepted fact among Christians, that Moses wrote the book and was passed down orally as was common in those days...but it really doesn't matter, my point was that Genesis was supposedly written by divination of what happened years before the author(s) lived to write the story.
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-19-08, 01:55 PM
You are technically correct, Moses physically could not have authored Genesis. In fact, there is evidence that multiple authors wrote the collection. However, it is accepted fact among Christians, that Moses wrote the book and was passed down orally as was common in those days...but it really doesn't matter, my point was that Genesis was supposedly written by divination of what happened years before the author(s) lived to write the story.
But Babyloian legends were found in tablets, in the library of Ashurbanipal as these pre-dated the time that the Jews were held there in captivity, and as the legends bared so many similarites to stories in genesis it can only be this that genesis is based on maybe moses copied them down, or maybe he read so many that he passed them on by word of mouth (chinese whispers) or wrote his own version but as to divination, for exegesis of genesis you start by taking it out of the bible and looking at it on its own, The very last thing done is to look at the text.
Saquist
02-19-08, 07:05 PM
Actually there is nothing to say that Genesis isn't exactly what it says it is. "An account of the creation of the heavens and Earth.
There is no information that gives us positive direction of the flow of information between the two cultures. All we really know is that there is some sharing going on. Who passed it and when it got passed and who got served that sharing is a complete unknown.
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-20-08, 02:42 AM
Actually there is nothing to say that Genesis isn't exactly what it says it is. "An account of the creation of the heavens and Earth.
.
Apart from the library of Ashurbanipal?????????????????????????????
jayleew
02-20-08, 08:34 AM
But Babyloian legends were found in tablets, in the library of Ashurbanipal as these pre-dated the time that the Jews were held there in captivity, and as the legends bared so many similarites to stories in genesis it can only be this that genesis is based on maybe moses copied them down, or maybe he read so many that he passed them on by word of mouth (chinese whispers) or wrote his own version but as to divination, for exegesis of genesis you start by taking it out of the bible and looking at it on its own, The very last thing done is to look at the text.
I'm aware of the ancient texts, but not that they were found in the library of Ashurbanipal. That is interesting...
The Babylonian legend could be the same legend of Adam and Eve found in the the Dead Sea Scrolls, the same myth found in Genesis. That would explain how the Jews wrote the Old Testament before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
This neither validates or invalidates the myth.
sowhatifit'sdark
02-20-08, 08:54 AM
Isn't it a matter of deciding what we want to start with as our assumptions, trusting them and working from there?
Anyone who thinks they have no faith, or axioms, is deluding themselves.
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-20-08, 08:55 AM
I'm aware of the ancient texts, but not that they were found in the library of Ashurbanipal. That is interesting...
The Babylonian legend could be the same legend of Adam and Eve found in the the Dead Sea Scrolls, the same myth found in Genesis. That would explain how the Jews wrote the Old Testament before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
This neither validates or invalidates the myth.
Hurmuzd Rassam in 1854 discovered the remenamts of a library,this was the labrary of Ashurbanipal the last great Assyrian king(650 BC).
iN 1873 George Smith discovered tablets with an account of a tale so similar to that of Noah that it must have been the same story, considering these tablets are dated to that of 100 years before the jews were held captive in Babylon. surley this is validation of no divination,but rather just a mis-match collection of folklore,legends etc
jayleew
02-20-08, 08:57 AM
Isn't it a matter of deciding what we want to start with as our assumptions, trusting them and working from there?
Anyone who thinks they have no faith, or axioms, is deluding themselves.
I have faith in many things, but not in God because he has given no reason for me to have faith in God.
Sure, if the Bible is truth, there is a reason, but the Bible has not been proven true.
jayleew
02-20-08, 09:14 AM
Hurmuzd Rassam in 1854 discovered the remenamts of a library,this was the labrary of Ashurbanipal the last great Assyrian king(650 BC).
iN 1873 George Smith discovered tablets with an account of a tale so similar to that of Noah that it must have been the same story, considering these tablets are dated to that of 100 years before the jews were held captive in Babylon. surley this is validation of no divination,but rather just a mis-match collection of folklore,legends etc
The account of Gilgamesh (Noah) is nearly identical to the account in the Bible. But that does not invalidate the event, or validate it. It is a myth.
I mean if the myth of Noah were true, then we are all the father of Noah and two brothers passed down the same story over generations, resulting in two nearly identical accounts of the same event. So, if the myth of Noah cannot be validated or invalidated, then it's not worth talking about who's copy is the real story. All of this talk is circumstantial, we don't know if the Jews liked the story of Gilgamesh and decided to assimilate it into their faith or not. It is fishy, and coincidental, but is circumstantial.
I know it is easy to let reason win, but I refuse to give up the fight at this time, likely because I was brainwashed, but I must see it through to the final verdict.
Actually there is nothing to say that Genesis isn't exactly what it says it is. "An account of the creation of the heavens and Earth.
There is no information that gives us positive direction of the flow of information between the two cultures. All we really know is that there is some sharing going on. Who passed it and when it got passed and who got served that sharing is a complete unknown.
There are lots of reasons to believe that Genesis is nothing more than mythology, whatever its origins. Evolutionary theory has shown that.
sowhatifit'sdark
02-20-08, 10:43 AM
I have faith in many things, but not in God because he has given no reason for me to have faith in God.
Sure, if the Bible is truth, there is a reason, but the Bible has not been proven true.
You probably have faith in many things that have not been proven true also. That was the point.
I was not making a case for the belief in God and certainly not in the Biblical one.
Saquist
02-20-08, 10:54 AM
There is no way to be sure of what happend between Babylon and the Hebrews nor the direction of the tranfer of information or in what time period. NO information suggest a true origin. Under similar processes of speculation one may conclude that the account is the same in relation to a single origin and thus the branching of humanity and the proliferation continued by word of mouth untill commited to writting by both.
That is likely what actuallly occured, and thus the accounts diverge from that premise.
jayleew
02-20-08, 01:37 PM
You probably have faith in many things that have not been proven true also. That was the point.
I was not making a case for the belief in God and certainly not in the Biblical one.
No, I don't have faith in things that have not been proven true. I knew where you were trying to go, but I don't agree. My ex-pastor fed me the same line, and I believed it before.
That was my point, is that the things I have faith in, like that my seat belt will attempt to save my life in a collision, or that a can of green beans does not contain hazardous material.
Can you name one thing that I might have misplaced faith that is not backed by hard evidence, enough that faith is warranted?
There is no way to be sure of what happend between Babylon and the Hebrews nor the direction of the tranfer of information or in what time period. NO information suggest a true origin. Under similar processes of speculation one may conclude that the account is the same in relation to a single origin and thus the branching of humanity and the proliferation continued by word of mouth untill commited to writting by both.
That is likely what actuallly occured, and thus the accounts diverge from that premise.
So do you intend that as an argument for their truth ? Seems to me like it's anybody's guess/
sowhatifit'sdark
02-21-08, 05:43 AM
No, I don't have faith in things that have not been proven true. I knew where you were trying to go, but I don't agree. My ex-pastor fed me the same line, and I believed it before.
That was my point, is that the things I have faith in, like that my seat belt will attempt to save my life in a collision, or that a can of green beans does not contain hazardous material.
Can you name one thing that I might have misplaced faith that is not backed by hard evidence, enough that faith is warranted?
Probably food products was a good can of worms to open up. You may, unlike most people, be well informed about the problems with additives, food dyes, transfatty acids and so on. But if you are not that would be one area. I don't know you. I'd have to follow you around a while and see where you are blissfully buy this or that official line on something.
Perhaps you bought the whole we are going into Iraq because of 9/11 and WOMD line.
Who know what you have fallen for?
I could try to go into your epistemology directly and see what assumptions you make, a kind of probing around methodology and philosophy of science,but I am way too lazy, right now.
jayleew
02-21-08, 09:16 AM
I could try to go into your epistemology directly and see what assumptions you make, a kind of probing around methodology and philosophy of science,but I am way too lazy, right now.
I suppose you do have a point that there are plenty of idiots out there who already have faith in things unproven. It almost seems like half the population.
There are those who have blind faith in things and I was no different given a decade earlier, but you said,
"Anyone who thinks they have no faith, or axioms, is deluding themselves." which implies everyone.
jayleew
02-21-08, 09:16 AM
Now that I think about things some more, and I try to think of something I have faith in, I believe having faith in anything is having ignorance. You can have trust, hope, and belief without faith. Is there any faith other than "blind faith"? There is only one definition of the word, out of six, that says it is synonymous with trust. The other five, from Dictionary.com say that it is blind.
Medicine*Woman
02-21-08, 10:05 AM
No, I don't have faith in things that have not been proven true. I knew where you were trying to go, but I don't agree. My ex-pastor fed me the same line, and I believed it before.
That was my point, is that the things I have faith in, like that my seat belt will attempt to save my life in a collision, or that a can of green beans does not contain hazardous material.
Can you name one thing that I might have misplaced faith that is not backed by hard evidence, enough that faith is warranted?
*************
M*W: Jayleew, you are a very wise example of what it means for the truth to prevail. I hope others will take serious heed to your wisdom.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:
"It can do no service to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral treaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith." ~ John Stuart Mill
*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comment of the Day:
"The important thing is not to stop questioning." ~ Albert Einstein 1879-1955 German-born American Physicist
Pinocchio's Hoof
02-21-08, 11:50 AM
The account of Gilgamesh (Noah) is nearly identical to the account in the Bible. But that does not invalidate the event, or validate it. It is a myth.
I mean if the myth of Noah were true, then we are all the father of Noah and two brothers passed down the same story over generations, resulting in two nearly identical accounts of the same event. So, if the myth of Noah cannot be validated or invalidated, then it's not worth talking about who's copy is the real story. All of this talk is circumstantial, we don't know if the Jews liked the story of Gilgamesh and decided to assimilate it into their faith or not. It is fishy, and coincidental, but is circumstantial.
I know it is easy to let reason win, but I refuse to give up the fight at this time, likely because I was brainwashed, but I must see it through to the final verdict.
surely in invalidates the possibility of a divine intervention.
but validates a event I.E. a tsunamii of proportions we have witnessed in our lifetime.
so this event is recorded in different areas, someone comes across several accounts, i.e the jews would have come across the tale in babylon when they left babylon it is possible that they found various similar tales enroute and come to the conclusion that the world had flooded (just as in the world is flat because i don't see it bend) add the combined tales togather and it becomes logical with no mystery. I think the world is still suffering from lack of faith in mankind the mental scars left by the inquisition and the crusades on this planet is epic in itself, the fact that people will put all their belief and hope in something you cannot see, hear, touch over their brother is beyond me.
when the bombs land I will be inside the shelter waiting for lunch, while all you believers are outside waiting for god:yay::yay::thumbsup:
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.