Lets [Debate] Religion

[GavinMannion]

I am condescending :), I feel that people only use religion as a crutch or to make themselves feel better about the bad things in life instead of actually facing reality.

If you are happy because when you die you believe that you are going to heaven but you have absolutely no proof of this idea then you are living in a dream world.

Paying some guy every Sunday is no way to guarantee a ticket into Heaven

[rwenzori]

I feel that people only use religion as a crux

Freudian slip? A "crutch" maybe? A "crux" would be a "cross" as in Christianity! :p

[GavinMannion]

Hey don't change my words :)...

Thanks for pointing it out :)

[arf9999]

You come across condescending.

Yeah, but it's hard not to. Sort of like the way you would talk to someone who worships the big flaming ball in the sky...

Religion is brainwashing, it has no rational basis. If people need to overcome the dissonance caused by the beliefs that they have had programmed into them and their own rationality, by creating "halfway house" positions (like Debbie2 has), that is only their way of dealing with the incompatibility of their ideas.

I have no axe to grind with Debbie, I have a lot of respect for her and she is obviously very intelligent, but I think her argument demeans her intelligence. I predict that, now that she has started to question religion, she will change her views over time until she admits that she is an atheist. (I was brought up in a religious home, and also thought that Science and Religion could co-exist, but gradually came to realise that they can't both be right.)

[Alan]

Rich and happy people lose loved one's too. They too are uncertain and scared about their own death. They too need comfort. What happened to emotional needs and hardhips?

You come across materialistic.

Again why can't a person be "normal" not scared, in need of hope or comfort
and just believe in a god.

In the end it is just a difference in opinion. They don't have to have something wrong with them to differ with you.

Just treat them with the same respect they treat you. As Teraside said about not abusing or arguing about who is wrong or right. They are perfectly happy to allow you to believe in something else so why not let them.

[Highflyer_GP]

I am condescending :), I feel that people only use religion as a crutch or to make themselves feel better about the bad things in life instead of actually facing reality.

If you are happy because when you die you believe that you are going to heaven but you have absolutely no proof of this idea then you are living in a dream world.

Paying some guy every Sunday is no way to guarantee a ticket into Heaven
Well I have absolutely no problem in people choosing to believe what they choose to no matter how non-sensical it sounds to us, as long as these beliefs are not imposed on those who choose to believe differently or not at all.

[Debbie]

Well, having tried to understand your post I admit I have not gotten any further than that you believe in God, you feel you can be in communion with him, but you have no evidence other than your own thoughts, beliefs and feelings. If God does exist, I figure you would be correct. Either that or God is matter = energy = whatever-other-funny-matter-stuff-they-find.

When you are in communion with him what does he tell you?

If you stop trying to classify me as "christian" or "atheist" etc, this might make my post easier to understand :)

In my conception, you are correct to say that "God is matter = energy =" etc.

When one is in communion with God, 'he' shows himself to you and 'he' tells you things I cannot even begin to explain. If you ever had a religious experience you'd know all about it, believe me :D!!


Well for that you get my respect and thanks. It is great to be getting down to some real honesty about peoples' beliefs.

teraside has some real guts backed by strong beliefs, and the courage to speak and I also deeply admire that.


That was a lot of writing there Debbie :)

Okay so to get it straight, you believe in God but you also believe in Evolution of sorts. Basically that God started the evolutionary chain and then every now and then he dips his finger back in to point it in the correct direction?

I believe in God, but my definition of God could be described as 'untraditional' of sorts.


You also feel organised religion is not what God would have wanted or requires and that there is no need to praise God for what he has done?

To clear up any confusion, I am not at all concerned or worried about 'what God wants'. I never said that organised religion is not what God would've wanted. God wants nothing. God has no opinion on organised religion, I believe. He neither likes it nor dislikes it, and He does not judge it.

You are correct to say that I believe that there is no 'need' to praise God for what He has done. Who's 'need' would this be anyway? My need to praise him, or his need to be praised? Because I have no need to praise him, and He has no need to be praised.


Can I ask you though how do you know which parts of the bible you must believe as being truthful and which parts can you throw away?

I see the bible as a partial, and oftentimes inaccurate and biased attempt by divinely inspired people to articulate the nature of God. In some way and parts it is therefore correct, and in some ways and parts it is incorrect.


Or is the bible itself just another part of organised religion?

The bible IS just another part of organised religion. Why is this an 'either/or' decision? Again, I am simply arguing for a re-examination of our belifs about God, religion, Life, and our place in the Universe.

(Sorry if I quote you I don't mean to attack you......I just use what you say to elucidate my own conception of God, not to 'fight' anyone. I think these things shold be discussed!)

[GavinMannion]

Debbie this thread used to be called "Lets Bash Religion" so quoting and attacking is the order of the day :D

You however did not answer the question of how do you know which parts of the bible can be ignored and which can't?

Personally your view of religion seems to be very unobtrusive so I have absolutely no problem with it. You are open to science and the reality of life and you don't expect the Bible to answer all the questions.

I find it strange that you still feel the need to believe in something though.


If you ever had a religious experience you'd know all about it, believe me

I have had 'religious experiences' before, Monday night was right up there :D, seriously tell us about a religious experience.

[Highflyer_GP]

Again why can't a person be "normal" not scared, in need of hope or comfort
and just believe in a god.

In the end it is just a difference in opinion. They don't have to have something wrong with them to differ with you.

Just treat them with the same respect they treat you. As Teraside said about not abusing or arguing about who is wrong or right. They are perfectly happy to allow you to believe in something else so why not let them.

That's exactly my point. However we have to accept that different people deal with things in different ways and we need to respect the ways in which they seek comfort as long as they respect ours.

What I do have a problem with is people who feel the need to force their belief on people by using the ignorance of the uninformed. A good example of this is the evangelists who set up mission camps for the poor and basically use their poverty as a means of coming across as saviours in order to convert them to christianity. IMO this is opportunistic and lame. Teraside and I chatted about this on MSN and we both agreed that it's wrong to impose one's belief on another, whether an atheist does it to religious folk or vice versa is besides the point.

[Alan]

Well I have absolutely no problem in people choosing to believe what they choose to no matter how non-sensical it sounds to us, as long as these beliefs are not imposed on those who choose to believe differently or not at all.

Remember it counts both ways.

Secondly there shouldn't be a problem with "advertising" a religion. It is up to the "costumer" to make the decision. They have the responsibility for their own beliefs. You got to trust him/her to make the decision for themselves. Accept and respect it. Just as long as it doesn't threaten society which in my opinion most religious people don't.

[ghoti]

My problem is where religion effects progress. A good example of this would be a town in mormon country in Utah that is trying to force kids to learn creationism instead of evolution.

[GavinMannion]

I have a huge problem with advertising religion, it commercialises it which in turn corrupts it. Just take a look at www.rhema.co.za

I also have a problem with the brainwashing of children in the name of religion. You are taking away their free will in the name of your God. not nice.

PS: vica versa means : It counts both ways :)

[Highflyer_GP]

Just as long as it doesn't threaten society which in my opinion most religious people don't.
Ok since you brought up this point, could you tell me how many wars were fought over the centuries (right up until today) over religion? Scientific progress? Abortion? Gay rights?

All this contributes to society, so tell me who are (or in the case of scientific progess, were against it during the dark ages) predominantly against it? Is it the atheists/agnostics or religious folk?

[Alan]

My problem is where religion effects progress. A good example of this would be a town in mormon country in Utah that is trying to force kids to learn creationism instead of evolution.

Tough one

Maybe they should at a reasonable age teach both and let the students make up their own minds. It is just as wrong to force evolution on kids instead of creationism.



I have a huge problem with advertising religion, it commercialises it which in turn corrupts it. Just take a look at www.rhema.co.za

I also have a problem with the brainwashing of children in the name of religion. You are taking away their free will in the name of your God. not nice.

PS: vica versa means : It counts both ways :)

Sorry I may have mislead you. By "advertise" I ment religious people should be free to make their case for why they are religious and why they think it would be beneficial to someone if they were to. I don't like rhema either but I suppose you must trust a person to "make the right choice" for themselves and hopefully you agree with it.

I agree about children but christians are allowed to leave the faith at any time.

Ha ha :p

[chiskop]

Tough one

Maybe they should at a reasonable age teach both and let the students make up their own minds. It is just as wrong to force evolution on kids instead of creationism.

That is exactly the problem. It's not a choice. One of these options is supported by centuries of empirical study in many different branches of science - the other option is a myth.

This is how we are saying religion impedes progress.

[Alan]

*Sigh*

It seems I have been sucked in:( .

:rolleyes:

[chiskop]

No, it seems you have not been paying attention through the rest of this thread.

[Highflyer_GP]

*Sigh*

It seems I have been sucked in:( .

:rolleyes:

Well if you have no response (whether or not you participated in the thread), does that mean that you concede defeat? ;)

[Alan]

NEVER :p

I managed to avoid posting right untill the very end:( . I was so close:o . I went the whole Claymore vs Kilo thread but I let my guard down here.:eek:

[rwenzori]

If you stop trying to classify me as "christian" or "atheist" etc, this might make my post easier to understand :)

And where, after your lengthy manifesto, did I do that?

[rwenzori]

When one is in communion with God, 'he' shows himself to you and 'he' tells you things I cannot even begin to explain. If you ever had a religious experience you'd know all about it, believe me :D!!

I have had quite a few. Problem is: are they for real, or are they just chemical brain imbalances or flashbacks from strange substances ingested in my youth? I can try explaining maybe - if you cannot explain, even in imperfect conceptual language, then the experience is meaningless. You first tho.

( Now I am admitting to things it is not wise to admit to on a public forum! )

[Xenophon]

I am a Christian, however I do not go out on the street corner and yell it out. I don't go to church, I don't read the Bible, however I do believe in God. And anybody who "bangs" Him is beneath me. That much I can say.

[Debbie]

I have no axe to grind with Debbie.... but I think her argument demeans her intelligence. I predict that, now that she has started to question religion, she will change her views over time until she admits that she is an atheist. (I was brought up in a religious home, and also thought that Science and Religion could co-exist, but gradually came to realise that they can't both be right.)

And I got no axe to grind with anyone either (except the heavy-weight names in spiritual abuse) :)

I am or am not an atheist, depending on what you mean by the term 'atheist':
*someone who does not believe in the existence of a Higher Power; or
*someone who does not believe in the existence of a Higher Power which is independent from themself.

If you mean the first definition, then I am not an atheist. If you mean the second definition, then yes I am an atheist. I believe that God Exists, but He's not out there, He's in here. I am an 'atheist', a 'secularist' and a 'humanist'. I do not deny the existence of God, but I do deny the existence of any God of which I am not, first and foremost, a part.

For me personally, I feel I've explored and resolved the atheism paradox. "God is dead, long live God!" and all that, and on to even higher and higher levels of understanding. I do not say that I am 'right' in what I believe. On deeper enquiry I will, no doubt, either find massive holes in my current understanding, or I will find that my old understanding was just a tiny step towards a whole new kind of understanding. I therefore cannot claim to be ultimately 'right' in what I say, because I do not claim a holistic understanding. My thinking about God/Life/The Universe is simply that- my thinking.....my reality.

[Debbie]

Secondly there shouldn't be a problem with "advertising" a religion. It is up to the "costumer" to make the decision.

Another Freudian slip, perhaps? ;)

[Alan]

Another Freudian slip, perhaps? ;)

Bwahahhah

customer

There happy now.

[Debbie]

And where, after your lengthy manifesto, did I do that?

You didn't and I'm sorry I implied that you were trying to categorise me. That was not my intention, my intention was to convey that my posts lend way to misunderstanding if one approaches them from the perspective that 'either' I am religious, 'or' I do not believe in God. I am both and neither, simultaneously.


I have had quite a few. Problem is: are they for real, or are they just chemical brain imbalances or flashbacks from strange substances ingested in my youth? I can try explaining maybe - if you cannot explain, even in imperfect conceptual language, then the experience is meaningless. You first tho.

( Now I am admitting to things it is not wise to admit to on a public forum! )

Did you read my post earlier with the parable of the people who thrice rejected help from God because God did not offer them help in a way that they expected? I see science as God's way of bringing us to a new understanding of Him. I don't see much difference between those who reject science and those people in the parable who rejected God's three offerings to help.

As for a religious experience, I have had more than one non-chemically induced religious experiences. The first happened when I was ten. It was an exceptionally difficult time in my life, my childhood had essentially (and very abrupted) ended. I was alone in the mountains in the Drakensburg when it happened.

As for deliberately chemically-induced religious experiences, I may have had some of those too. But now we are getting into arguments for and against the nature of reality, and I'm more than happy to go there if you are.

[noxibox]

2 Peter 3:3 "... in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."
I wonder if that is literal or a possible simplification like 'the universe was created in 6 days'. People have been scoffing for at least a few thousand years so it probably isn't literal. Of course our sun is now middle-aged and only has another 5 billion years to go so we are into the end run here.

[noxibox]

Secondly there shouldn't be a problem with "advertising" a religion
As long as it conforms to advertising standards.

[Debbie]

I have had quite a few. Problem is: are they for real, or are they just chemical brain imbalances or flashbacks from strange substances ingested in my youth? I can try explaining maybe - if you cannot explain, even in imperfect conceptual language, then the experience is meaningless. You first tho.

What defines 'real'? Emotions have been pinned down to being chemical substances. Do you allow room for the possibility that chemicals (both 'naturally' and 'unnaturally'-produced) are perhaps a mechanism through which a new understanding can result?

[noxibox]

Well I have absolutely no problem in people choosing to believe what they choose to no matter how non-sensical it sounds to us, as long as these beliefs are not imposed on those who choose to believe differently or not at all.
That is essentially where I stand. Although I do not promise not to make fun of them.

Should they be allowed to expose children to their beliefs though?

[noxibox]

God should be referred to as an it, not a he or she.

[TELESPHORE]

Normally as Rizla from what I hear anyways... moving along...



I can also quote from the bible!

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

However its pointless.

I find it most disturbing if things are posted out of context and indeed a lie on itself. Even worse if it is taken as posted from the bible.
These points on the bible contradicting itself is hogwash and a lie.
Here is my contribution.

God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31

The complete passage is (note not the summary inserted by the author) :
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6

The passage in context is:

Genesis 6
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

God saw in men the evil they had become. Very much like some I see here. God was not happy how man thought. He was happy with his creation at the time it was doen. It is like a parent raising a child and then the child becomes evil.

2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
2 Chronicles 7:12:
12And the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice.



2 Chronicles 7:16:
16For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48

Passage Acts 7:45-60:
45Which also our fathers that came after brought in with ***** into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
46Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.
47But Solomon built him an house.
48Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
49Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
50Hath not my hand made all these things?
51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
54When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and ***** standing on the right hand of God,
56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
59And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord *****, receive my spirit.
60And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
God allowed Solomon to build a temple so that the primitive tribes of Isreal would have comfort. The so called contradiction is the words from Stephen before he was stoned, because he testified that you are not just in the presence of God in a temple, but everywhere you go. The person Saul, referred to in the passage became Paul, the most famous Evangelist of the Bible.

There is nothing contra dictionary in these passages.

3. God dwells in light
1 Timothy 6:16
15which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
(Paul’s charge to Timothy)

God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2

1 Kings 8:10-13:
10 When the priests withdrew from the Holy Place, the cloud filled the temple of the LORD. 11 And the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled his temple.
12 Then Solomon said, "The LORD has said that he would dwell in a dark cloud; 13 I have indeed built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever."
Psalm 18:9-12:
9 He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet.
10 He mounted the cherubim and flew;
he soared on the wings of the wind.
11 He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him—
the dark rain clouds of the sky.
12 Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced,
with hailstones and bolts of lightning.
Psalm 97
1 The LORD reigns, let the earth be glad;
let the distant shores rejoice.
2 Clouds and thick darkness surround him;
righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.
3 Fire goes before him
and consumes his foes on every side.
4 His lightning lights up the world;
the earth sees and trembles.
Nowhere is said God dwells in darkness.

4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11

Exodus 33:20-28:
20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
21 Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."

God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

John 1:16-18:
16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through ***** Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[a][b]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

So where is the contradiction?

5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
Exodus 31:15-18:
15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "
18 When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.
God is tired? No this was metaphorically speaking. Just as the Universe was not created in 6 human days. God’s creation work was completed it seems.

God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28

Isaiah 40:28:
28 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom.



6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21

Job 34:21-22:
21 "His eyes are on the ways of men;
he sees their every step.
22 There is no dark place, no deep shadow,
where evildoers can hide.

God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

Genesis 18:20-21:
20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
How He works we would not know. Anyway we know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Bear in mind Genesis was written many generations after the events, based on the word of mouth as handed down by generations, in words people would remember.

[ghoti]

Bear in mind Genesis was written many generations after the events, based on the word of mouth as handed down by generations, in words people would remember.

Enough said. Thanks for the info though, I am sure http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm would like to know where they are inaccurate. Theres a couple of hundred there you might want to go through.


<offtopic>
Kevin: atheist atheist atheist. happy?</offtopic>

[TELESPHORE]

Enough said. Thanks for the info though, I am sure http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm would like to know where they are inaccurate. Theres a couple of hundred there you might want to go through.


<offtopic>
Kevin: atheist atheist atheist. happy?</offtopic>

To what extend would it help to talk to a deliberate liar? It is just when posted in these public forums the propagators of their evils should be challenged.

[dablakmark8]

this will tell that guy about where the terrible lizard stands in evolution

www.answersingenesis.org

And for other answers to

[Debbie]

Both philosophers and scientists can now agree to the inescapable conclusion that everything, the entire universe and cosmos, are one. Let me say it again. What high philosophy has said for thousands of years is proven by science and quantum physics. We are not talking about silly-science, but mainstream, broad based acceptance, and experimental proof. There is only ONE thing in the entire universe, the universe itself. All time, space, mass and energy are inseparable and seamless. We are not “connected’ or “linked” to the people and things around us. We are ONE with them. Mass and space and energy CAN appear and disappear. Even the laws of entropy have been shown to be as limited as Newton’s mechanics when talking about the foundation level functioning of the universe. Something that has long been intuitively known by those who meditate is now laboratory proven fact; All is truly One.

At the quantum level there is no Is. Nothing IS. All is flux and probability, not what WE call reality. At the primary level an electron ISN’T, a proton ISN’T, nor photons or neutrons. It is only probabilities of being and location. But these probabilities intersect with other probabilities and gradually, then suddenly, appears certainty. For a moment. Then the electron and the photon it interacted with are NOT again. Step back a bit and then the probabilities intersect more often and more things suddenly ARE. Now we see atoms and light rays, but don’t look too close or they become whatever we are looking for and nothing that we are not, within certain limits. At a certain level there are so many probabilities colliding that all seems real and stable. This is the world we see with our eyes and our other senses. Most of us think of atoms as electrons whirling around hard cores of protons and neutrons, but this is a false picture. Nothing IS until it has a significant probability of interacting with some other bit of nothing. But All of that nothing is part of a seamless whole. A foundation of reality, time and space. Everything just an expression of it’s interaction with another part of the universal everything.

Quite interesting.

Think of the implications this could have for a statement such as "you create your own reality".

[arf9999]

I
Bear in mind Genesis was written many generations after the events, based on the word of mouth as handed down by generations, in words people would remember.

Actually, the whole bible was written long after the "events". So calling it the "Word of God" is a bit of a misnomer.

[TELESPHORE]

Actually, the whole bible was written long after the "events". So calling it the "Word of God" is a bit of a misnomer.

Not quite correct. Translations and transcriptions were made. Moses wrote the first 5 books if I remember correctly (feel free to correct me as I have not verified it now, but basing it on my memory). The Book of Jashar (which is not part of the Bible) co-incise with the first 5 books of the bible from a historical point. Jashar was a historian at the time of Moses.
From there on the prophets and/or historians wrote the scriptures.
The New Testament was written by the disciples and evangelists of that time. That was the source. The very original manuscripts are lost yes, but that does not make the message untrue.
On word splitting there would be a problem, but I truly believe that the message is clear and resounding. There is also the problem of words that have no correct meaning in our time:

The phrase ‘Eye of a Needle’ does not refer to the eye of a sewing needle, but to a opening in the protective walls of a city, through which only a crouched man can pass, but no vehicle or horse or camel. These entrances could be easily closed off and no battle formation could enter the city through it. Hence the phrase that a camel would easier pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man would enter heaven. It makes sense because no man can pass through the eye of a sewing needle anyway, so why refer to a camel.
Also remember that rich people at the time of the New Testament were suspect as being in colludes with the Romans, which were the enemy and oppressors of Israel at that time. Being rich is not a mortal sin, but at that time being rich meant you sold out on your fellow citizens and also on the Jewish faith.
Anyway that the phrases like eye of a needle still prevailed, gives some credit to the corrective nature of the Bible.

[ghoti]

Not quite correct. Translations and transcriptions were made. Moses wrote the first 5 books if I remember correctly (feel free to correct me as I have not verified it now, but basing it on my memory). The Book of Jashar (which is not part of the Bible) co-incise with the first 5 books of the bible from a historical point. Jashar was a historian at the time of Moses.
From there on the prophets and/or historians wrote the scriptures.
The New Testament was written by the disciples and evangelists of that time. That was the source. The very original manuscripts are lost yes, but that does not make the message untrue.
On word splitting there would be a problem, but I truly believe that the message is clear and resounding. There is also the problem of words that have no correct meaning in our time:

The phrase ‘Eye of a Needle’ does not refer to the eye of a sewing needle, but to a opening in the protective walls of a city, through which only a crouched man can pass, but no vehicle or horse or camel. These entrances could be easily closed off and no battle formation could enter the city through it. Hence the phrase that a camel would easier pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man would enter heaven. It makes sense because no man can pass through the eye of a sewing needle anyway, so why refer to a camel.
Also remember that rich people at the time of the New Testament were suspect as being in colludes with the Romans, which were the enemy and oppressors of Israel at that time. Being rich is not a mortal sin, but at that time being rich meant you sold out on your fellow citizens and also on the Jewish faith.
Anyway that the phrases like eye of a needle still prevailed, gives some credit to the corrective nature of the Bible.

Could you explain the total lack of archaelogical evidence that the jews wondered around the desert for 40 years? Which was in moses escapades.


Did the 12 Tribes of Israel ever exist? The first Israelites were Egyptians and followers of Pharaoh Akhenaten, (17 years in the middle of the 14th century BC) whose attempts to introduce monotheism into Egypt engendered rage among the religious establishment. Moses, an Egyptian noble), served as chief priest in Akhenaten’s cult and, after Akhenaten’s death, had to flee Egypt to avoid execution. The so-called "ten lost tribes" disappear from history without an archaeological trace of their prior existence.

Pharaoh Horemheb waged a bitter campaign to eradicate all vestiges of Akhenaten’s heresy, eliminating the evidence stone by stone and word-by-word. As a result, Akhenaten remained lost to history until nineteenth-century Egyptologists discovered the ruins of his capital city.

When Horemheb died, Moses returned to Egypt, united his followers with other enemies of Egypt and attempted to seize the throne from Ramesses I. The coup failed but to avoid a civil war, Moses and his allies were allowed safe passage out of Egypt. This was the real Exodus. After entering Canaan, the Egyptian followers of Moses formed military alliances with local Canaanite kings and with some of the recently arrived Greek invaders. This non-tribal alliance of small kingdoms and city-states became biblical Israel.

[TELESPHORE]

Could you explain the total lack of archaelogical evidence that the jews wondered around the desert for 40 years? Which was in moses escapades.

You lost me there – what part of wandering is not understood by archeologists – People wandering as nomads do not leave cities behind. Anyway go ask a Jewish Rabbi about that part if you really are infatuated by the nomadic existence of Israel in the time of Moses.

[ghoti]

You lost me there – what part of wandering is not understood by archeologists – People wandering as nomads do not leave cities behind. Anyway go ask a Jewish Rabbi about that part if you really are infatuated by the nomadic existence of Israel in the time of Moses.

Strangely enough we can find remains of most of the other people there, right down to the romans. You would have thought that a large group of people wondering one desert for 40 years would have left large collections of archeological evidence. Even a cup would do.


Professor Anati was also struck by the fact that, except for some minor Egyptian mining activity, there appears to have been no human occupation in Sinai in the 13th century B.C., the G.A.D. for the Exodus. Indeed, there was no human occupation in the Sinai, as demonstrated by the archaeological evidence, during the entire Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 B.C.).
In contrast, archaeologists have found abundant evidence of human occupation in the Sinai during almost every archaeological period both before and after the G.A.D. for the Exodus, that is, before and after the Late Bronze Age.a

[Padded Mouse]

Padded Mouse: Why yes I am, nice to see you are looking for me :), even if it is a bit stalker like :P
....

Oh , not to take it personally, I google everyone and everything, it has become instinct :D (it's fun to google some of the nicks on this forum and see where they land you... people do not often change their nicks, never mind the site)
Strangely enough have just joined a poet's site / forum tonight as another platform to post my poetry, and they actually include googalisms of your name, gives other people reading your poetry a chance to see where else you are published! Quite a nice touch !

[TELESPHORE]

Strangely enough we can find remains of most of the other people there, right down to the romans. You would have thought that a large group of people wondering one desert for 40 years would have left large collections of archeological evidence. Even a cup would do.

Yes sure, archeologists have covered the entire region of millions of square kilometers looking for lost cups in sand and mortar tens of meters under. They get their finds from fixed structures that protected and preserved relics. Not in an open ground and just start digging. Even to this day, there are hordes of nomadic groups over the Middle East. It is the way they live. The fact there cannot be historically accounted for such a large group for so long should have raised some questions already.

[ghoti]

"In contrast, archaeologists have found abundant evidence of human occupation in the Sinai during almost every archaeological period both before and after the G.A.D. for the Exodus, that is, before and after the Late Bronze Age.

I think you should find this document interesting:

http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-proxy.pl/000000A/http/www.basarchive.org/bswbSearch.asp=3fPubID=3dBSBA&Volume=3d11&Issue=3d4&ArticleID=3d3&UserID=3d0&

[noxibox]

I find it most disturbing if things are posted out of context and indeed a lie on itself. Even worse if it is taken as posted from the bible.
These points on the bible contradicting itself is hogwash and a lie.
Here is my contribution.

God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31

The complete passage is (note not the summary inserted by the author) :
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
Doesn't wash. God knows everything. God knew Adam and Eve would eat the apple, God knew their spawn would turn evil, God knew they'd all be wiped out. God must also obviously know in advance exactly who and who will not end up in Heaven.


Bear in mind Genesis was written many generations after the events, based on the word of mouth as handed down by generations, in words people would remember.
Doesn't wash. This book is supposed to be the word of God. It must be perfect and accurate in all respects. Even when translated repeatedly.

[noxibox]

At the primary level an electron ISN’T, a proton ISN’T, nor photons or neutrons. It is only probabilities of being and location
Reads a lot like a common misinterpretation.

[rwenzori]

As for a religious experience, I have had more than one non-chemically induced religious experiences. The first happened when I was ten. It was an exceptionally difficult time in my life, my childhood had essentially (and very abrupted) ended. I was alone in the mountains in the Drakensburg when it happened.

As for deliberately chemically-induced religious experiences, I may have had some of those too. But now we are getting into arguments for and against the nature of reality, and I'm more than happy to go there if you are.

Thanks for the response. But I see you neatly duck the "real" issue of describing a religious experience - or "explaining" the mental/sensory/whatever experience. I am always keen to discuss subjects like reality, but not if you are going to introduce a topic like a religious experience, and then shy away from describing it. Honesty is the entrance fee.

[arf9999]

Not quite correct. Translations and transcriptions were made. Moses wrote the first 5 books if I remember correctly (feel free to correct me as I have not verified it now, but basing it on my memory).
no he didn't.

"...it has long been recognized that...[Moses] cannot have been the author, and that the Pentateuch is in fact anonymous." D.J.A. Clines.
D.J.A. Clines, "Pentateuch," [an essay in B.M. Metzger et al, "The Oxford Companion to the Bible," Oxford University Press, New York, NY (1993), Page 579 to 582].

[JBFRobisher]

Quite interesting.


We are not “connected’ or “linked” to the people and things around us. We are ONE with them. ... Something that has long been intuitively known by those who meditate is now laboratory proven fact; All is truly One.

What a lot of goo. This writer has obviously never been through a divorce. :eek:

[GavinMannion]

Here is a very interesting site http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm


Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to the ancient, pagan myths of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures. In the Fertile Crescent, the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in present-day Iraq, gave birth to some of the worlds first civilizations.

In this early flowering of civilization, many religious myths abounded, seeking to explain what was then unexplainable. From this context comes the oldest complete literary work we have, the age of which we are certain, dating back at least 7,000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lengthy narrative of heroic mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived.

Many of the stories in that epic were eventually incorporated into the book of Genesis. Borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh are stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world.

In this Mesopotamian basin civilization, known to us today as the Chaldean Empire, tribal alliances that predated the amalgamation into a single empire, continued to exist and flourish. Many were allied to the palace, many opposed, all retained elements of their pre-conquest cultures.

The patriarchs first appear in our story with the journey of one of them, Abraham, who, the story tells us, led members of his tribe from the city of Ur, west towards the Mediterranean, to the "promised land" of Canaan, sometime between the 19th and 18th centuries B.C.E. Or so the story goes.

I swear I go home for a nap and come back to 3 more pages and a bunch of other avenues to follow. It's going to be another good day :)

edit: Sorry I forgot to say why I posted this. It is in response to people claiming Moses wrote Genesis :)

[Debbie]

Reads a lot like a common misinterpretation.

;)


Thanks for the response. But I see you neatly duck the "real" issue of describing a religious experience - or "explaining" the mental/sensory/whatever experience. I am always keen to discuss subjects like reality, but not if you are going to introduce a topic like a religious experience, and then shy away from describing it. Honesty is the entrance fee.

You may have heard the buddist saying- "If you see the buddah walking down the street, turn and run!"

Or here's another quote that rings true for me-

"god is whatever’s what about whatever is.
What we can conceive of god is
whatever is just slightly over the horizon."

Describing what a religious experience is like is, as far as I can ascertain, impossible. After all, that's why it's called a religious experience in the first place, right, ......because it is something so magnificent, so complex, so beyond words, so indescribable. How can one describe something when the words or a means of communication to describe it don't exist? Any attempt at explanation would undoubtedly fall way way short, I'm sure you can agree. Still want me to try?

I'm looking for answers, and for more questions. Otherwise I wouldn't be posting on this thread.

Is there value in the non-authentic? Is an 'artificial' religious experience of any less personal value than a 'natural' religious experience? "Is all that we see or seem, but a dream within a dream?" (Edgar Allan Poe wrote that, I think).

[Claymore]

Tough one
Maybe they should at a reasonable age teach both and let the students make up their own minds. It is just as wrong to force evolution on kids instead of creationism.


The problem here is groups trying to prevent the teaching of *science*, and replacing it with the teaching of religion in science classes. Evolution isn't just an opinion, any more than gravity is.

[Claymore]

The New Testament was written by the disciples and evangelists of that time. That was the source. The very original manuscripts are lost yes, but that does not make the message untrue.


The earliest New Testament writings are estimated to have been written 30-40 years after the events, at the earliest, and many NT writings are from much later (hundreds of years).

Apart from that, much seems to be somewhat fictional too. Also, there are absolutely no contemporary records of ***** at all, even from the meticulous Romans.

[Claymore]

Is there value in the non-authentic? Is an 'artificial' religious experience of any less personal value than a 'natural' religious experience? "Is all that we see or seem, but a dream within a dream?" (Edgar Allan Poe wrote that, I think).

Yep, and Orson Welles spoke in the Alan Parsons Project album "Tales of Mystery and Imagination".

[Alan]

For those who don't believe in a god please watch the Arsenal vs CSKA Moscow soccer match last night.

More proof of divine intervention you cannot possibly ask for.

[Leitmotif]

For those who want proof that there is no god, direct your attention to our government ministers...

[GavinMannion]

Okay so it seems the main debate has completely stopped.

Debbie you say you are looking for answers and questions but to be honest you are not really saying that much.

Why do you believe in God?

[nthdimension]

Is there value in the non-authentic? Is an 'artificial' religious experience of any less personal value than a 'natural' religious experience? "Is all that we see or seem, but a dream within a dream?" (Edgar Allan Poe wrote that, I think).
There is no such thing as an artificial experience. It does not matter what means are used to induce a particular neurochemical state.

[nthdimension]

The problem here is groups trying to prevent the teaching of *science*, and replacing it with the teaching of religion in science classes. Evolution isn't just an opinion, any more than gravity is.
You're just a gravitationist :)

Creation can be taught when they do research of the same caliber as that produced for evolution. Their argument at this point seems to rest on merely finding possible mistakes or things that are currently inexplicable and claiming this as proof of their idea. This means naturally that all someone else has to do is find a hole in their idea and use that as proof of another idea.

[GavinMannion]

Creationism can not be taught as a valid option of how the world started because it cannot stand up to any scrutiny.

The book of Genesis is just a mash of stories from multiple different cultures and everything said in Genesis can be dis proven with a small amount of research.

How is it even possible in this day and age that people still subscribe to the possibility that the earth was created in 7 days and Noah put two of every animal on a wooden boat... The size of the boat firstly would be to large for a wooden vessel to stay afloat and the logistics required in getting all the animals on the boat is insane. How did he get a Kangaroo or Meerkat on the boat?

Where did he store all the food? How did he repopulate the earth with the 8 people on the boat? The maths doesn't work. You can't teach this to kids as fact as it isn't. You would just be lying to them

[Debbie]

Okay so it seems the main debate has completely stopped.

Debbie you say you are looking for answers and questions but to be honest you are not really saying that much.

Why do you believe in God?

I know I say a lot without saying much, and I know I am confused.

Why do I believe in God? I'm not sure. It depends on what is meant by the term 'God' I suppose. Can't we first look for a common understanding of what we mean by 'God'? Cause I'm not talking about a big man in the sky who answers some prayers and ignores others.

[Alan]

I know I say a lot without saying much, and I know I am confused.

Why do I believe in God? I'm not sure. It depends on what is meant by the term 'God' I suppose. Can't we first look for a common understanding of what we mean by 'God'? Cause I'm not talking about a big man in the sky who answers some prayers and ignores others.


Gee I never noticed ;)

[GavinMannion]

I know I say a lot without saying much, and I know I am confused.

Why do I believe in God? I'm not sure. It depends on what is meant by the term 'God' I suppose. Can't we first look for a common understanding of what we mean by 'God'? Cause I'm not talking about a big man in the sky who answers some prayers and ignores others.

God: The word which is used to describe the supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe and all there is.

What is your definition?

[Debbie]

God: The word which is used to describe the supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe and all there is.

What is your definition?

I don't have a complete definition, hence my spiritual problems (I think).

I have a problem with the term "supreme". For something to be "supreme", it has to be 'supreme' in relation to something else, right...? My problem is that I conceive of God as being everything - the absolute - the alpha and the omega - so I don't really see anything for God to be 'supreme' to. I dunno, am I making any sense to you?

[GavinMannion]

Nope :D. seriously kind off...

But if God is everywhere and everything but does not actually exist then what are you believing in?

If he doesn't realise you are there and doesn't care that you are there what makes you think that will be different when you are dead?

You are sounding more like a earth worshiper than a god worshiper. I can't remember right not what they are called but they basically worship the earth, sky and universe but don't believe in an afterlife or anything like that.

[Rkootknir]

I don't have a complete definition, hence my spiritual problems (I think).

I have a problem with the term "supreme". For something to be "supreme", it has to be 'supreme' in relation to something else, right...? My problem is that I conceive of God as being everything - the absolute - the alpha and the omega - so I don't really see anything for God to be 'supreme' to. I dunno, am I making any sense to you?This sounds a lot like Spinoza's pantheism to me. From Wikipedia:
Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel "subworlds" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality.Baruch Spinoza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza)

If so, you're in good company: Einstein, Kant and Hegel were all influenced by Spinoza

[Debbie]

Nope :D. seriously kind off...

But if God is everywhere and everything but does not actually exist then what are you believing in?

I don't know. I can't help but see (at worst) glimpse of truth in the conumdrum, though that being said I am not at peace with it, maybe because I don't feel (ie permanently experience) a complete understanding of it.


If he doesn't realise you are there and doesn't care that you are there what makes you think that will be different when you are dead?

I don't know how to respond to this, but suffice it to say it's food for thought, so thanks!


You are sounding more like a earth worshiper than a god worshiper. I can't remember right not what they are called but they basically worship the earth, sky and universe but don't believe in an afterlife or anything like that.

Earth-worshipper? Hehe, ok, if that's what people want to call it......however, I do believe in an 'afterlife' (it's better described as an 'afterdeath' in my conception).

[GavinMannion]

I don't know how to respond to this, but suffice it to say it's food for thought, so thanks!

I love people who answer honestly, so it's a pleasure I think :confused:

Take a look at this site http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm


Earth-worshipper? Hehe, ok, if that's what people want to call it......however, I do believe in an 'afterlife' (it's better described as an 'afterdeath' in my conception).

Okay so you do believe something awaits you when you die apart from decay and worms.. So what do you think awaits you?

[supersunbird]

/me bashes religion with a big stick

mmmm, me feels much better. One can be moral and have religion, one can be amoral and claim to be religious, and can be moral and not have a religion...

[Debbie]

Thanks rkootknir, that looks like something really important to me.....reading now....

7:34: still reading. heavy.

[nthdimension]

Noah put two of every animal on a wooden boat... The size of the boat firstly would be to large for a wooden vessel to stay afloat and the logistics required in getting all the animals on the boat is insane. How did he get a Kangaroo or Meerkat on the boat?

Where did he store all the food? How did he repopulate the earth with the 8 people on the boat? The maths doesn't work. You can't teach this to kids as fact as it isn't. You would just be lying to them
It is quite amusing watching them try to come up with excuses to justify that particular fairy tale. It is quite a popular one to tell children and obviously they don't question the details, but the fact that adults believe it is incredible. The story was of course made up when people thought the world was a much smaller place and knew of a very limited number of animals.

Animals would no more be able to repopulate from single pairs than humans could without serious genetic problems from such a small, and necessarily inbred, gene pool.

As I recall the Noah tale also makes no mention of insects and reptiles. He would have to have collected millions of different types of insects or at least their eggs.

[supersunbird]

It is quite amusing watching them try to come up with excuses to justify that particular fairy tale. It is quite a popular one to tell children and obviously they don't question the details, but the fact that adults believe it is incredible. The story was of course made up when people thought the world was a much smaller place and knew of a very limited number of animals.

Animals would no more be able to repopulate from single pairs than humans could without serious genetic problems from such a small, and necessarily inbred, gene pool.

As I recall the Noah tale also makes no mention of insects and reptiles. He would have to have collected millions of different types of insects or at least their eggs.

The "great flood" mythology is widespread and could be found in many pre -western-contact civilizations on all the inhabitable continents and many islands. It is speculated that there was a great melting of the ice caps once in prehistory and that many islands became much smaller or were submerged and that low lying areas were flooded.

For example, the Canary Island are the tops of mountians thats are on a big plato, which submergence may have caused the Atlantis myth. Some evidence of this event is the unwater river beds in the Mediteranean.

[GavinMannion]

A bit off topic but I just had this quote sent to me and I thought it fitted quite nicely


"Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional
love."
- Bill Hicks

How true is that from a christian standpoint :D

[Nameite]

yes the great flood happened. Hence all the different rock layers which was once used to prove evolution. Its just a bunch of soil seperating due to their size in large amounts of water.
It contained many fossils, which were just all the animals that drowned and got covered. And the fossil fuels we know today are just the organic materials that got washed and sank to the bottom, later being covered by a layer of sand/dirt whatevers.
Just a theory that makes sense~

[arf9999]

yes the great flood happened. Hence all the different rock layers which was once used to prove evolution. Its just a bunch of soil seperating due to their size in large amounts of water.
It contained many fossils, which were just all the animals that drowned and got covered. And the fossil fuels we know today are just the organic materials that got washed and sank to the bottom, later being covered by a layer of sand/dirt whatevers.
Just a theory that makes sense~
ok. where did the water go?

[TELESPHORE]

ok. where did the water go?
Back to wherever water goes. Flooding is not a consistent process you have in a laboratory. Even in our own backyard things like the Lainsberg floods come to mind. Also the floods in the Free State where Rhino’s drowned on flat ground.. In more recent times the flooding caused by the hurricanes in the USA – like Katrina. It takes time for water to subside; it is not an instantaneous process.

[Nameite]

Yeah it took ages to go away, into where u see all the water is now~
The Sea!
And there has been scientists who dug up shell fossils on higher grounds.
If there's a great flood in almost every single ancient culture, I'm pretty sure there might have been a great flood:p

And to nthdimension's comment about insects and reptiles, insects are small and they normally survive flood that we know of today. They hide in higher grounds or floating, dried up logs. Even if they dont survive, their eggs survive. And reptiles, they are very small too~ No one said noah brought adult ones, he could just bring an egg couldnt he?

And hey, maybe there were much more animals but he ate them as food :p
This debate is pointless coz we will never be able to prove it either way~

[TELESPHORE]

no he didn't.

"...it has long been recognized that...[Moses] cannot have been the author, and that the Pentateuch is in fact anonymous." D.J.A. Clines.
D.J.A. Clines, "Pentateuch," [an essay in B.M. Metzger et al, "The Oxford Companion to the Bible," Oxford University Press, New York, NY (1993), Page 579 to 582].

Look at the date. It is an essay and postulate dated 1993!!!!!!!. Have you read it or are you just Googling it. Have you tested the person’s theory? Anyway I does not really matter once you have to face God after your Google days are over.
With this I think my responses to this senseless thread can be closed.

[Nameite]

Amen (so be it) !

[dominic]

you have to face God after your Google days are overthat caught my eye

i can't make up my mind whether it is a signature waiting to happen or an excerpt from Chapter 1 of the Book of Go d-Fearing Geeks





/no disrespect intended

[Claymore]

Animals would no more be able to repopulate from single pairs than humans could without serious genetic problems from such a small, and necessarily inbred, gene pool.

Incidentally, it's thought that that entire human race can be genetically traced back to 30 or so individuals. Apparently there is more genetic diversity in a single troop of chimpanzees than there is in the entire human race.

Along those lines, "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Brian Sykes makes for fascinating reading.

[TELESPHORE]

that caught my eye

i can't make up my mind whether it is a signature waiting to happen or an excerpt from Chapter 1 of the Book of Go d-Fearing Geeks





/no disrespect intended

Hmm - perfect legal disclaimer.
I actually went and looked at the postulates and they all hang in the air from the comments of their peers. If the experts have no resolution, who are we to use their postulations as proof? I am not a theological expert. Just a person that believes in something more special than this earth, that is not so special.

[Nameite]

I studied genetics in varsity :p
Not an expert or anything, but we learn that just a slight deletion in ur genes can cause u to become retarded or deformed. And if it gets worse, u wont even survive if u're born.

So if we came from simple matter, we would be be not being able to live until our genes built up to this point now where everything works with one another.
In basic terms, unless an fish mass mutated its genes all at once, will it be able to live on as a reptile. Any slight change to the DNA would likely cause it to die!

Something I wanted to add but didnt know when:p

[arf9999]

Look at the date. It is an essay and postulate dated 1993!!!!!!!. Have you read it or are you just Googling it. Have you tested the person’s theory? Anyway I does not really matter once you have to face God after your Google days are over.
With this I think my responses to this senseless thread can be closed.

So 1993 is too long ago to be credible, but we can accept the old testament most of which was written over three thousand years ago.... uh okay...

My response was to your claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, it is commonly believed (even by religious scholars) that he didn't. I found something to back up my point (actually I found lots...google is like that :)), you ran away and said that I'm going to be judged by God... Come back when you can actually debate.

[arf9999]

Back to wherever water goes. Flooding is not a consistent process you have in a laboratory. Even in our own backyard things like the Lainsberg floods come to mind. Also the floods in the Free State where Rhino’s drowned on flat ground.. In more recent times the flooding caused by the hurricanes in the USA – like Katrina. It takes time for water to subside; it is not an instantaneous process.


Yeah it took ages to go away, into where u see all the water is now~
The Sea!
And there has been scientists who dug up shell fossils on higher grounds.
If there's a great flood in almost every single ancient culture, I'm pretty sure there might have been a great flood:p


Ok, now think about this slowly. If the entire world was covered by water, then there would be nowhere for it to go. It can't go to the sea, because the whole world IS sea. You can't just pull out the plug and let the water out... it has to go somewhere...

Yes, there are places that are now high above sea level that have sea animal fossils and sea shells. But that doesn't mean that those areas were flooded, but rather that the land has shifted upwards due to tectonic plate movement (edit: and MILLIONS of years before Noah).

edit again: Some lateral thought for you -
And there has been scientists who dug up shell fossils on higher grounds. - what are the chances that these *fossils* were deposited there 4000-6000 years ago (as the fundamentalists would have us believe)?

[arf9999]

I studied genetics in varsity :p
Not an expert or anything, but we learn that just a slight deletion in ur genes can cause u to become retarded or deformed. And if it gets worse, u wont even survive if u're born.

So if we came from simple matter, we would be be not being able to live until our genes built up to this point now where everything works with one another.
In basic terms, unless an fish mass mutated its genes all at once, will it be able to live on as a reptile. Any slight change to the DNA would likely cause it to die!

Something I wanted to add but didnt know when:p

You couldn't have done very well in that course, because you obviously don't understand the process of so-called natural selection. Most (almost all) mutations are not positive, but some are, and that's all that is required. I suggest that you read "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

[Debbie]

:D

Arrived at what I feel is a more accurate description of God-

God is that which remains unchanged during any process of change.
----

This sounds a lot like Spinoza's pantheism to me. From Wikipedia:Baruch Spinoza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza)

If so, you're in good company: Einstein, Kant and Hegel were all influenced by Spinoza

I've read a lot based from that link provided.

So far all I can say is that I subscribe to a possibly atypical panpsychism, of which neutral monism could potentially be the sponsoring branch (depending on the approach). Such a neutral monism would not be incompatible with a version of anomolous monism, the latter from which I do not reject the existence of the incompatibility of 'physical laws' with any kind of 'mental process' (on a micro- or cosmic scale), but rather that I assume this 'incompatibility' element initially resulted from an immature understanding of quantum physics, the understanding of which has now advanced substantially.

My beliefs could also be described as 'deterministic' to a certain extent: I have my own solution to the unpalatable implications for free will that this brings, however, which, briefly stated, asserts the existence of multiple deterministic realities of which all possibilities have already played out and 'reality' as we experience it is simply the result of the choice to experience that reality (this is possible under the belief that the experience of time as linear is illusionary- past present and future in all deterministic realities referred to above happen simultaneously).

Being "christian" just sounds easier, I'm starting to think.

[nocilah]

religion simply put is a choice.

what i believe and what others believe is what we choose to believe.

there is no way i can ever convince you to believe what i believe, however i can choose to believe what you choose to believe and once we we have a multitude of persons believing in the same choice a religion is born and a religion dies.

the same way you have chosen to read this post is not the same as choosing to believe this post and so lies the enigma of belief.

[teraside]

I heard a lovely thing today from a fellow Christian.

There is no debate where truth is concerned ;) Guess that counts for your state of mind in whatever you believe hey?

ps. halicon, you rock dude, I like that explanation A LOT!

[rwenzori]

So far all I can say is that I subscribe to a possibly atypical panpsychism, of which neutral monism could potentially be the sponsoring branch (depending on the approach). Such a neutral monism would not be incompatible with a version of anomolous monism, yadda yadda

Whew! I wonder what that all means! Myself, I am a monocoque pananimist, which means, so you don't have to go a-searchin', that I am one pr1ck who thinks god is everywhere and in everything, carrying the collective consciousness of the universe and permeating everything like a wet fart in a sleeping bag.

Of course there is zero evidence, zero proof, zero anything else - as Oddball said "Have a little faith brother!"

[GavinMannion]

yes the great flood happened. Hence all the different rock layers which was once used to prove evolution. Its just a bunch of soil seperating due to their size in large amounts of water.
It contained many fossils, which were just all the animals that drowned and got covered. And the fossil fuels we know today are just the organic materials that got washed and sank to the bottom, later being covered by a layer of sand/dirt whatevers.
Just a theory that makes sense~

? Sorry are you being sarcastic or do you actually believe that?

I don't know how to answer it if you are actually being serious apart from maybe it's time you started doing some more research on everything.

[GavinMannion]

Another funny I got in my email



Kissing Hank's Butt

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I
found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's butt with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why
would I want to kiss His butt?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's butt, He'll give you a million dollars; and
if you don't, He'll kick the snot out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town.
Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is
to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His butt."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the butt?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's butt with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's butt often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the
money, and He kicks the snot out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's butt, left town, and got
the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's butt for years. She left town last
year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if
you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll
get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a
twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And
remember, if you don't kiss Hank's butt He'll kick the snot out of
you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details
straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His butt?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His butt. Other
times we kiss Karl's butt, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing
Hank's butt. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a
Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His butt, and that Hank would
reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining
the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the Desk of Karl

1. Kiss Hank's butt and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the snot out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's butt or He'll kick the snot out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of
philanthropist kicks the snot out of people just because they're
different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides,
item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and
item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone
knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with
item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just
plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2.
As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for
sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made
of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from
out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon
was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not
knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we
know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary: She blushes.

John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else
is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary: She looks positively stricken.

John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of
any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it
would be out of the question?"

Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La
la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary: She faints.

John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I
wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the snot out of you I'll
be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's butt for
you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

[Nameite]

You couldn't have done very well in that course, because you obviously don't understand the process of so-called natural selection. Most (almost all) mutations are not positive, but some are, and that's all that is required. I suggest that you read "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

Yeah natural selection, sure. Survival of the fittest in that area.
Name me one positive mutation that has occured and known to man.
Those books are written by evolutionists, u think they're gonna be non bias?

Every natural selection procedures I have studied which are use to prove evolution dont really prove it. For example, bacterial resistance to anti-biotics. They do not mutate this gene for survival, the gene already exists from other bacterias. And these genes originate from other species of bacteria which produced these antibiotics to defend themselves.
There's no evolution there, nothing new was created from time. Natural selection in this case is using the genes aquired from other species.

Another mechanism of resistance is the change in ribosomes. The ribosome gets a deletion in the gene coding so the antibiotics dontr recognize it. But this leads to coding less genes of the ribosome. So what does this mean? Its not getting any better!

So read more books, and then opens your eyes!

[Doges]

Debate is a formalized system of (usually) logical argument. Rules governing debate allow groups and individuals to discuss and decide issues and differences. Debate is a common process in deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts. Outcomes of debates may be decided by voting, by judges, or by combination of both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

A list dissing Christianity is not a debate......

Why spend so much time and energy trying to disprove something that, according to you, does not exist anyway? I choose to believe what I believe, funny stories and stupid lists will not change my mind. You see just as I choose to believe in a creator, you choose to believe there is no creator. Therefore we both believe in something that cannot be proven or disproven. There is no experiment that can prove the existance or non-existance of God it is your belief against mine. You choose to believe in chance and I believe in intelligent design. I wonder how random genetic mutations can give rise to complex organs such as eyes/lungs/kidneys/ etc when it is clear that intermediate steps hold no advantage to the organism with the mutation (I have a masters degree in Science, so I know a bit about genetics). Especially when so much energy is spent by the cell to weed out mutations? I'm amazed at the odds it took for a meteor to knock of a piece of the earth, just the right size, that is essential for life on earth? I wonder about the amazing coincedences it took for life on earth to develop from a mass of random chemical elements into single celled procaryotes that have the ability to generate copies of itself, and from there develop into amazingly complex multicellular organisms.

I always laugh at so-called "atheists" trying to force their view onto you in exactly the same way certain religious people/sects will do. In trying to make you believe in what they as atheists believe (chance, randomness etc), they become exactly what they loathe so much. Religious fanatics....

[Nameite]

? Sorry are you being sarcastic or do you actually believe that?

I don't know how to answer it if you are actually being serious apart from maybe it's time you started doing some more research on everything.

Well half serious and half sarcastic :p
Frankly I dont know what to believe anymore coz everything condradicts everything and everything disproves everything while everything proves everything.

So if i see the evolutionist side winning I take side of evolution.
I went thru a stage where i did research and want to try get to a conclusion of this. Doesnt work, dont even bother~

Like I said earlier, believe what u want coz everything (knowledge) we know are all man made~

[GavinMannion]

Yeah natural selection, sure. Survival of the fittest in that area.
Name me one positive mutation that has occured and known to man.


What would you require as a positive mutation?

What about the mutation that the mosquitoes in Athens are currently undergoing? They are changing physically to better adapt to their environment.

Or am I missing something here?

[GavinMannion]

A list dissing Christianity is not a debate......


Blame IC for that one. I originally named this thead "Lets Bash Religion"

Obviously someone complained and got it changed and now you have gotten confused about what the real purpose of this thread was.

See IC I told you not to change it.

[Nameite]

What would you require as a positive mutation?

What about the mutation that the mosquitoes in Athens are currently undergoing? They are changing physically to better adapt to their environment.

Or am I missing something here?

Positive mutation. Permanent mutation to the genome which allows it to improve in survival~
Could u please specify what sort of changes they're undergoing?
U know malaria resistance in Africa? Its actually just ur reb blood cells changing shape and not being able to transport oxygen. If u just one of of the pair with the gene, u are resistant to malaria, if u have two then u're pretty much worse than having malaria....just an example.

So tell me what sort of changes do they have now in athens?

[GavinMannion]

Air pollution, cramped living in Athens breeding 'super mosquitoes'

ATHENS (AFP) - Cramped housing conditions and air pollution in Athens have given rise to a "super breed" of mosquito that is larger, faster and more adept at locating human prey, a Greek daily has reported.

Athens-based mosquitoes can detect humans at a distance of 25-30 metres (yards) and also distinguish colours, unlike their colour-blind counterparts elsewhere in the country that only smell blood at 15-20 metres, Ta Nea daily reported.

The "super mosquitoes" of the Greek capital also beat their wings up to 500 times a second -- compared to 350 beats for other variations -- and are larger by 0.3 microgrammes on average, the paper said, citing a study conducted by Aristotelio University in the northern city of Salonika.

According to the study, the mosquitoes of Athens have adapted to deal with air pollution and insect repellents, and overpopulation in the Greek capital of over four million has provided them with a healthy food supply.

"Mosquitoes can lay their eggs even inside the trays placed beneath thousands of balcony flowerpots," Athens University professor of zoology Anastassios Legakis told the daily.

I would say the biggest pointer to a genetic change would be that they can now see in colour.

[Nameite]

Hey this aint bad for a new research project.
This could probably knock my arguements over then :p
If its studied at a genetics level and shows that these are regular mosquitoes which have undergo a major mutation, then evolution is proven~

But then again like the bacterial resistance process I posted earlier, these mosquitoes may have been around and are just another specie from regular ones. And now they're noticed because of the enviroment which favours them from other mosquitoes.

Did u know, some guy offers half a million dollars to anyone who can bring out a solid proof for evolution....
This may be my lucky break :p

[GavinMannion]

Hell I know nothing about genetics so you can go for it :)

Think of us when you are rich

[Nameite]

Damn I just checked, this guy meant macro-evolution....coz micro evolution is proven.

If someone could prove a something can change into something else, eg. fish into reptile, then it proves....
Dang, this wont work~

[texo]

I wonder how random genetic mutations can give rise to complex organs such as eyes/lungs/kidneys/ etc when it is clear that intermediate steps hold no advantage to the organism with the mutation (I have a masters degree in Science, so I know a bit about genetics).

Dude, you should ask that university for your money back, because you obviously weren't taught how to think critically.

The evolution of the eye is always brought up by creationists, despite the fact that it has been patiently explained time and time again (even on this forum).

And, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.

Start here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/

"The proponents of intelligent design assert that the combination of nerves, sensory cells, muscles, and lens tissue in the eye could only have been "designed" from scratch. After all, how could evolution, acting on one gene at a time, start with a sightless organism and produce an eye with so many independent parts, such as a retina, which would itself be useless without a lens, or a lens, which would be useless without a retina?

[GavinMannion]

Noone will prove macro-evolution for another 300-500 years. Things where not recorded properly before now and macro-evolution takes a loooong time.

Lots of micro's make a macro :)

[killadoob]

ok guys i have read alot of this thread and have one question:

im not a believer or a non believer im an unknown or confused

who created GOD?
So if no one created GOD could the universe also just exist like you say GOD did

he just is

the universe just is

personally i think GOD is man made to make ppl believe in something greater than themselves but no one knows for sure

an athiest has no clue just like a church going believer has no idea

its all about what you believe as a person, if you want to believe there is a GOD then do so
If you want to believe in science and fact then dont believe in GOD


but again im not sure :(

[Nameite]

Ok think I will stop my parts in this from here.
This has been argued for decades without any outcome, cept for a few angry ppl~

But refering to the first post about if u're taking religion too seriously, I need to balance it out a bit :p
Simple breakdowns of what evolutionists believe:
1) Everything came from nothing (big bang)
2) We evolved from a rock (only rocks were present right in the beginning.)
3) The first life ate rocks (nothing else to eat)
4) First life created in a toxic enviroment, which the living cannot live in now.
5) Time will create more complex things (Leave a car outside for 500 years, it will be alive!)

And I will end it here :p
Close thread ~

[GavinMannion]

Nameite: Aha your bias shines through, where did someone who believes in Evolution say we came from rocks?

Or ate rocks or needed to eat...

Sad end to an open debate from you...

[web]

I have to say something. I have read most of this thread since it started and i must say I am impressed. Not going to take sides in this I believe what i believe, but i must say that its great that a thread like this could be discussed like adults and not turn into the usual mud slinging match. Keep it up.:D

[Nameite]

Well what we learn at school:
There was nothing, then bang everything appaeared.
Masses of solid "rocks" floated around in space, soon water appeared on these giant rock objects and substances got washed off the rocks which created a bio "soup".
Lightning and heat then created the living (somehow after time)

So from all that, where do u think life came from first? Rock :p
And where do we all evolve from? The first life of course.
And as all scientist knows it, energy is needed by life to sustain it. Since there was nothing else but rocks back then, wont be wrong to say the first life ate rocks~ right? ;)
Coz if it doest utilize anything for energy, it would die and we will all not exist~

[Highflyer_GP]

So if no one created GOD could the universe also just exist like you say GOD did

That is the question. Einstein believed in the god of Spinoza, basically stating that god is physically a part of every living organism i.e. as humans we also all have a part of god within us, basically a driving force of life.

However there's no invisible beings or personal gods watching down on all 6 billion of us so that they can judge us one day. To believe that would be silly. How would one judge animals to be good or bad? What happens to animals in the "afterlife"? Does this same god judge aliens if they exist or are we so conceited to think that earth is the most important planet in the universe (out of the trillions) that he only looks down on us?



personally i think GOD is man made to make ppl believe in something greater than themselves but no one knows for sureThat's exactly it. People are so *****scared of dying that they seek comfort in lying to themselves that once they die it doesn't end completely because they have an afterlife to look forward to. And then religious organisations saw a loophole in this way of thinking that they came up with the idea of heaven and hell as a means of using death to instill fear in people so that they could control them.

[chiskop]

That's exactly it. People are so *****scared of dying that they seek comfort in lying to themselves that once they die it doesn't end completely because they have an afterlife to look forward to. And then religious organisations saw a loophole in this way of thinking that they came up with the idea of heaven and hell as a means of using death to instill fear in people so that they could control them.


I think that's it in a nutshell.

[killadoob]

yes its a way of controlling ppl i agree but its also a way to ease ppl's minds so they are not scared of death
Its also a way of generating money for church's by thats another story

Look at all those ppl who are men of GOD molesting kids because they are not allowed to marry or be sexually active? GOD or whoever made us the way we are and you cannot tell a man he cannot have sex, its like telling me i must stop drinking i will turn to drugs rofl :)

Look at a place like rhema church, their man person ray mcahley lives in a 10 million rand house and has a model wife/g/f who wears designer outfits all paid for the by the faithful rhema ppl

how is a 10 million rand house and designer clothes doing GOD's work?

he even got divorsed


o yes rhema is not a church its a business

[GavinMannion]

Well what we learn at school:
There was nothing, then bang everything appaeared.
Masses of solid "rocks" floated around in space, soon water appeared on these giant rock objects and substances got washed off the rocks which created a bio "soup".
Lightning and heat then created the living (somehow after time)

So from all that, where do u think life came from first? Rock :p
And where do we all evolve from? The first life of course.
And as all scientist knows it, energy is needed by life to sustain it. Since there was nothing else but rocks back then, wont be wrong to say the first life ate rocks~ right? ;)
Coz if it doest utilize anything for energy, it would die and we will all not exist~

A typical creationist response.

Your school should be torched if that is what you where taught.

I will just say this one obvious thing. Rocks are energy, what makes you think the first energy release after the big band grouped into rocks?

There are many sites about the Big Bang Theory on the net, go read up a bit and then come back and argue again.

Once part which I really enjoyed is

Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago.

[Nameite]

Well whatever was created by the big bang of nothing, ended up as rocks.
And from these rocks did all the minerals and what nots gets washed off by water.

SO let me ask u then, from what did the living originate from?

Mind the detals, i'm looking at things simply here, such as the first post when they say creationists believed we're created from dust.
If u breakdown everything from the big bang to us now, what do the evolutionists believe we come from?
Rocks! I dont wanna know the details, I'm just making a come back for the 1st post.

[teraside]

Soup

[Highflyer_GP]

SO let me ask u then, from what did the living originate from?
Maybe ask yourself what makes up 90% of your body? Also while you're at it, do some research into amino acids.

[GavinMannion]

Well whatever was created by the big bang of nothing, ended up as rocks.
And from these rocks did all the minerals and what nots gets washed off by water.

seriously do all the priests and pastors bang on about rocks in church?

Stop with the rocks you are the only one who is trying to prove something ate rocks?

Like you have been answered already, Amino Acids, Biological Soup, Water, Energy, Heat......

That is where we came from 14 Billion years ago. Obviously most of us have evolved quite far since then. But then some of us haven't :)

[teraside]

LOL! you came from soup! :D

[Nameite]

So where did amino acid come from?
The carbons and nitrogens making up the amino acid....
They popped up from no where!?
Come give us more origins~ :)

[Nameite]

And seriously, just coz u cant think of where we come from, personal attacks are not very nice ;)

[GavinMannion]

And seriously, just coz u cant think of where we come from, personal attacks are not very nice ;)

Hey your the one who won't stop talking about Rocks :)

Okay here is what is currently understood about the Big Bang and where we came from


mmediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.

As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.

After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.

After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen. Consequently, the universe today is observed to contain one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen.

So basically we started from pure energy and not dust. I prefer that :D

[Nameite]

Yeah but dust was created from energy as well in christian views :P
So basically we all believe the same thing, except everyone's creator has a different name, for evolutionists its called time and chance ;)

[Claymore]

So where did amino acid come from?
The carbons and nitrogens making up the amino acid....
They popped up from no where!?
Come give us more origins~ :)

BTW, creation of the universe etc. is cosmology, not evolution. Different subjects altogether.

As for amino acids...chemical reactions. These have been created in labs.

[Nameite]

wow so someone back then had a lab and synthesized all those amino acids...sounds like creation to me :p

[Highflyer_GP]

So basically we all believe the same thing, except everyone's god has a different name, for evolutionists its called time and chance ;)
Time and chance can be observed, god can't. We still hold better ground because we don't attribute the unexplained to invisible sky fairies watching over each individual on one planet out of trillions. Instead we seek to explain the unexplained. Remember that at one point electricity would have been unexplained, and that some ancient cultures would have attributed this to powers of a supreme being. Just because something currently cannot be explained, doesn't mean that it's the work of god, who's to say that it won't be explained in the future?

[Nameite]

God can be observed, if u believe in him.
Its kinda like ghosts, if u dont believe in ghosts, would u ever go on a ghost hunt?
Chance cannot be observed by someone who believes everything is planned coz he will see it as fate and not chance...

It all comes down to what u personally believe in, and from that u believe, u will see~

May the rocks be with us in future :p

[Claymore]

wow so someone back then had a lab and synthesized all those amino acids...sounds like creation to me :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

[Nameite]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Sorry couldnt resist, was a joke :p
I know what u saying, learnt it before. And it does make sense~

But I just cant accept the fact that we're here by chance....makes me feel like a baby-born coz daddy didnt use protection....u know

[Rkootknir]

So where did amino acid come from?
The carbons and nitrogens making up the amino acid....
They popped up from no where!?
Come give us more origins~ :)One word: Cosmology.

Alpher and Gamow calculated the amounts of elements that would be produced by an event such as the Big Bang. Amazingly their results coincided almost exactly with observations. Now think about that: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) occurred during the period 100 to 300 seconds after the Big Bang (the universe had expanded and cooled down too much after that to allow further reactions). That means that human beings figured out how the elements were formed about 14 billion years after the fact. IMHO that's quite impressive.

Now, BBN can only be responsible for the lightest elements (Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium). Hoyle was later able to explain how the heavier elements were formed: In stars (up to Iron IIRC) and in supernovas (where forces are so intense that any element can be fused from lighter elements).

The predictions made by stellar nucleonsynthesis and supernova nucleosynthesis also agree with observation.

So here we have a coherent framework of theories that explain how the elements were formed. Hope that helps.

[noxibox]

eyes/lungs/kidneys/
Actually any intermediate stage of any of those would provide an advantage over those without the intermediate organ. In the case of the eye a very basic light sensor is better than no light sensor.

[noxibox]

Damn I just checked, this guy meant macro-evolution....coz micro evolution is proven.
OK, so he's basically dishonest. There is no real differentiation. And the really big changes takes millions of years.

[noxibox]

However there's no invisible beings or personal gods watching down on all 6 billion of us so that they can judge us one day. To believe that would be silly. How would one judge animals to be good or bad? What happens to animals in the "afterlife"? Does this same god judge aliens if they exist or are we so conceited to think that earth is the most important planet in the universe (out of the trillions) that he only looks down on us?
And let's not forget that if this god knows everything past, present and future then everything in the universe is pre-determined. There is only the illusion of free will and this god knew before even starting creation every event that would transpire, including who would end up in heaven.


That's exactly it. People are so *****scared of dying that they seek comfort in lying to themselves that once they die it doesn't end completely because they have an afterlife to look forward to. And then religious organisations saw a loophole in this way of thinking that they came up with the idea of heaven and hell as a means of using death to instill fear in people so that they could control them.
It's quite silly. We were dead right up until the time we were born, we live for a while, then we're dead again. So effectively we've been dead most of the time.

[Nameite]

ai~ we're just organisms in this world...
Born to die and be food for future organisms.... :'(

[dominic]

throws in a curve ball


no time ago
or else a life
walking in the dark
i met c hrist

j esus)my heart
flopped over
and lay still
while he passed(as

close as i'm to you
yes closer
made of nothing
except loneliness


(ee cummings)

[Highflyer_GP]

I have a book called The Illuminati Formula Used To Create An Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave by Cisco Wheeler and Fritz Springmeier. It basically explains how people in power such as Hitler, Mussolini and leaders of other monarchies employed mind control techniques in order to brainwash people into believing in their cause. Basically these are the same principles employed by religions used to trick people into believing in their causes in order to have control over them. It then goes on to explain the exact techniques used (such as conscious hypnosis) and how to go about doing it. Fun reading for anybody interested.

[Alan]

I have a book called The Illuminati Formula Used To Create An Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave by Cisco Wheeler and Fritz Springmeier. It basically explains how people in power such as Hitler, Mussolini and leaders of other monarchies employed mind control techniques in order to brainwash people into believing in their cause. Basically these are the same principles employed by religions used to trick people into believing in their causes in order to have control over them. It then goes on to explain the exact techniques used (such as conscious hypnosis) and how to go about doing it. Fun reading for anybody interested.

Yeah I wouldn't mind reading that. It would by interesting to see these "principles" that the mass media are employing today.

[arf9999]

Well what we learn at school:
There was nothing, then bang everything appaeared.
Masses of solid "rocks" floated around in space, soon water appeared on these giant rock objects and substances got washed off the rocks which created a bio "soup".
Lightning and heat then created the living (somehow after time)

So from all that, where do u think life came from first? Rock :p
And where do we all evolve from? The first life of course.
And as all scientist knows it, energy is needed by life to sustain it. Since there was nothing else but rocks back then, wont be wrong to say the first life ate rocks~ right? ;)
Coz if it doest utilize anything for energy, it would die and we will all not exist~

Dude, to quote texo, you should go back to school and ask for your money back. You are not trying to think rationally or critically, but rather trying to make science fit your beliefs.

[Highflyer_GP]

Yeah I wouldn't mind reading that. It would by interesting to see these "principles" that the mass media are employing today.

So independent authors are now termed as "mass media"? Or maybe I interpreted your comment wrong, so I apologise if I did. But hey you can't blame the media for everything, Rhema uses this very medium in order to get their message across.

It's no wonder that so many books were previously banned by the church - they can't stand criticism ;)

[arf9999]

Yeah natural selection, sure. Survival of the fittest in that area.
Name me one positive mutation that has occured and known to man. Black and White moths in industrial revolution britain?



Those books are written by evolutionists, u think they're gonna be non bias?
Yes they are non biased. Because they are scientific documents, open to peer review, and with documented research, and give reference to all the science that came before. (Giving references would be a good idea for you to try, because your arguments are mostly a mixture of naive second hand mythology, bad science and hearsay.)

[Alan]

So independent authors are now termed as "mass media"? Or maybe I interpreted your comment wrong, so I apologise if I did. But hey you can't blame the media for everything, Rhema uses this very medium in order to get their message across.

It's no wonder that so many books were previously banned by the church - they can't stand criticism ;)

I wasn't implying these particular authors were "mass media". I was talking about the "mass media" . Like CNN and Time magazine for example. I'll have to read the book before I can pass my judgment on it. You're right about Rhema :rolleyes: but both sides are guilty. Just one is worse than the other I suppose.

Before I get dragged into this thread again. I will look out for that book and see if it is worth reading.

[Geriatrix]

Yeah I wouldn't mind reading that. It would by interesting to see these "principles" that the mass media are employing today.

From someone working in advertising, take it from me. Its easy, tell people what they want to hear, in the way they want to hear it. Tell them why they are special, push blame or negative concepts on another created group in opposition and then play on the emotions caused.

If you're really interested, read about totemism(related to human psychology) and semiotics(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics).

People are usually surprised to learn that what they think and believe and like(or dislike) is simply programmed and not something unique or special. ;)

Thats why I see all culture and all politics as bull.

[Nameite]

Black and White moths in industrial revolution britain?


Yes they are non biased. Because they are scientific documents, open to peer review, and with documented research, and give reference to all the science that came before. (Giving references would be a good idea for you to try, because your arguments are mostly a mixture of naive second hand mythology, bad science and hearsay.)

Sheesh so much trouble for this debate, even need references. Ok fine I will put in some extra effort and look for this dumb references.
About ur cute little moths http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm check that.

What else u want reference about?
Maybe if i was standing fully on creationist's side and am paid for winning this thing, then would I take the efforts.
The so-called bad science/mythology/hearsay are just summarys and simple breakdowns so the average ppl can understand without asking me to explain and dig up for info wasting my precious gigs ;)

[Alan]

Thanks Geriatrix, very interesting. I will look into it. Maybe we should start a thread on it because it is relevant to what is going on today.

Just don't start the thread today because I'm a walking zombie.:(

[teraside]

I'm a walking zombie.:(

Same here and the heat is killing me! :( :o :(

[Geriatrix]

Zombies rock!

http://www.watkykjy.co.za/snotstories_view.asp?theID=56

[Alan]

Same here and the heat is killing me! :( :o :(

It has been so humid here. It is unbelievable. The last few day have been overcast with a low bank of cloud but it has been hot :confused: . At least today it has cooled down.

[arf9999]

Sheesh so much trouble for this debate, even need references. Ok fine I will put in some extra effort and look for this dumb references.
About ur cute little moths http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm check that.

What else u want reference about?
Maybe if i was standing fully on creationist's side and am paid for winning this thing, then would I take the efforts.
The so-called bad science/mythology/hearsay are just summarys and simple breakdowns so the average ppl can understand without asking me to explain and dig up for info wasting my precious gigs ;)

Ah, well done. Thanks for the link, it's pretty well written and even seems to have some references. Of course it is not by any stretch of the imagination "non-biased". ARN is an organisation dedicated to shoehorn science into the concept of Intelligent Design. Why not try Wikipedia's much less biased view of the debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution


Prominent intelligent design proponent Jonathan Wells, who studied biology as part of his life goal of "destroying Darwinism",[18] wrote a 2001 essay on the subject, a shortened version of which appeared in The Scientist.[19] He followed this up with the controversial book Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we Teach About Evolution is Wrong.[20] Cook, Grant and Majerus have all claimed that Wells' writings on the subject are deliberately dishonest.


edit: Here's an admitedly pro-evolution rebuttal of Well's points: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html

[Nameite]

lol
Doesnt matter about biased or not, it provided many "scientific" references didnt it? As i quote from someone earlier "Yes they are non biased. Because they are scientific documents, open to peer review, and with documented research, and give reference to all the science that came before"

What Cook and Grant and Majerus say, is what they claim. They didnt give any reference to why Wel's writing is deliberately dishonest...or if I'm wrong here, please do give us the refrences :)

[arf9999]

lol
Doesnt matter about biased or not, it provided many "scientific" references didnt it? As i quote from someone earlier "Yes they are non biased. Because they are scientific documents, open to peer review, and with documented research, and give reference to all the science that came before"

What Cook and Grant and Majerus say, is what they claim. They didnt give any reference to why Wel's writing is deliberately dishonest...or if I'm wrong here, please do give us the refrences :)
see the edit above.

Wells' article IS peer reviewed. His peers think it's cr@p. All the references are on the Wikipedia link.

[noxibox]

It basically explains how people in power such as Hitler, Mussolini and leaders of other monarchies employed mind control techniques in order to brainwash people into believing in their cause. Basically these are the same principles employed by religions used to trick people into believing in their causes in order to have control over them.
It's not that complicated - a common enemy to fear - fear is the key.

[Nameite]

I dunno hey, references mostly refers back to evolution books, written by evolution. Hope its non-biased~

And obviously the peers who responded will think its cr@p, look what book they wrote. If I showed an experiment proving evolution to creation scientists, think they will agree?
Why dont we just end this by saying, creation has to be right, read the bible DUH~~~

Oh and read this:
At best, present evolutionary phenomena are simply slight changes of genotypes within populations, or substitution of an allele by a new one. For example, the mutant carbonaria of the birch moth, Biston betularia, replaces the regular butterfly in polluted industrial areas (Haldane, 1956; Ford, 1971). Some biologists maintain that they cannot only observe it but also describe it in action; the facts that they describe, however, either have nothing to do with evolution or are insignificant." —*P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 84.

[GavinMannion]

What don't people get about evolution.

Everyone now admits that micro-evolution happens. So when a certain species goes through 100 different micro evolutions in 1000 years they end up completely different. Is that so hard to see?

It's always going to be a slight change.

[Kommedoor]

For all you believers out there.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

[supersunbird]

Well whatever was created by the big bang of nothing, ended up as rocks.
And from these rocks did all the minerals and what nots gets washed off by water.

SO let me ask u then, from what did the living originate from?

Mind the detals, i'm looking at things simply here, such as the first post when they say creationists believed we're created from dust.
If u breakdown everything from the big bang to us now, what do the evolutionists believe we come from?
Rocks! I dont wanna know the details, I'm just making a come back for the 1st post.

We come from cosmic matter that was in the form of the most simple and most abundant elements that underwent chemical bonding and other reactions...

[GavinMannion]

For a second there I thought this thread had finished and moved over to the evolution thread where currently Gods are making themselves out of nothing :D

[teraside]

There is but one creator (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNEAQlDcXPw)! :p :cool: :rolleyes:

[supersunbird]

yes the great flood happened. Hence all the different rock layers which was once used to prove evolution. Its just a bunch of soil seperating due to their size in large amounts of water.
It contained many fossils, which were just all the animals that drowned and got covered. And the fossil fuels we know today are just the organic materials that got washed and sank to the bottom, later being covered by a layer of sand/dirt whatevers.
Just a theory that makes sense~

That is just dumb, why dont we then find all the fossils just mixed together? We dont, cause they are different species in different layers because they come from different epochs.

[supersunbird]

For a second there I thought this thread had finished and moved over to the evolution thread where currently Gods are making themselves out of nothing :D

Well, I havent had working ADSL for a week and 2 days now, so I dont even know the other thread exists... :( :D

[GavinMannion]

Wow 409 posts... this thread just won't stop :D

my iBurst at home is also currently down. I borrowed the power cable to charge my camera on holiday and left it there... not the bright thing I have ever done :(. Anyone got a spare?

[nthdimension]

You have to wonder why prayer is even necessary. Vocalised prayer is obviously for the benefit of others, to demonstrate devoutness, but then why silent prayer? God already knows what you're going to say. To God you have already asked your question. Before evening starting the universe God knew what you are going to ask tomorrow.

[GavinMannion]

Why would God who knows everything and has planned everything make us pray out loud? The only thing that I can think of is that he needs the ego boost.

Kind of like me writing a program that tells me how great I am every day.. hey that's not a bad idea ;)

[Nameite]

I'll be back when I adsl come back :p
Gonna make this da longest thread in the shortest time!

[icyrus]

Why would God who knows everything and has planned everything make us pray out loud? The only thing that I can think of is that he needs the ego boost.

Kind of like me writing a program that tells me how great I am every day.. hey that's not a bad idea ;)

I know it was in jest, but I can't help adding my 2c. Don't try and rationalise religion. Religiousness and rationality are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

[GavinMannion]

With the amount of people who have added their 2c into this thread I should be rich by now :D

You are 100% correct though, Religion and Rationality/Logic are mutually exclusive... This is why it annoys me. I am a logical person and I don't understand people who ignore the complete lack of logic in religion.

[doobiwan]

There are places and times where religion and rational discourse can and do come together. But it takes an individual with a clear and open mind to come to grips with it. It'll never be by someone who 'represents' a religion.

Religion has always been the tool of a few to manipulate the masses (The communists were right ;) ) But at the heart of most religions lies the principle of lawful and kind interpersonal relationships. It's the millennia of self serving propaganda of men that lay across the top of most religions that clerics deify and call law or tradition. Some of the Christians figured that out a couple hundred years ago, other religious groups figured it out sooner, some later and others, well, unfortunately still need to get there.

And the point of my absolute drivel post? I haven't had enough coffee yet.

[GavinMannion]

Okay since I haven't had my coffee yet either what do you think about this.

Everyone is able to admit that all religions seem to be based on good values and human kindness right?

My personal opinion is that the good values and kindness where only put in to get the people interested in religion in the first place. Like any cult that has ever existed you have the front garden where the majority of people exist and see. This is always nice and pretty and always talks about human kindness and goodwill to others. Then when you are really into the religion/cult you start getting more involved in the inner sanctums where they start talking about the risks that others are to your religion/cult.

Once they have you hooked that your religion/cult is only trying to help everyone, you are then open to hear about the enemies of your religion. Once you are in full agreement that certain people are trying to destroy your religion/cult then you are ready to be moved into the back rooms where they start talking about how to stop their enemies destroying your happy little family.

All religions works this way, 90% of the people who follow a religion stay in the front garden and about 2% get to the back room. However it's that 2% of people who justify why the cult/religion was created in the first place. It's about controlling people and then controlling cities/areas/countries and then the world.

This is the problem with just allowing religion without challenging it, you need to keep them on their toes else they can recruit more and more people and then we end up back in the dark ages...

conspiracy theory of note :D

[doobiwan]

That's why there's a need for separation of Church(Mosque/Temple whatever) and State. Funnily enough what the American fore fathers and the Chinese communist revolutionaries have in common ;)

[GavinMannion]

The French where and are still very good at doing that.

The States is heading in the wrong direction where the church is integrated into the state and the british are still not sure what they are planning on doing :D

The old SA gov where terrible at separating the two which is why you now have so many staunch and loud atheists in SA. Some of us did not take well to attempted brainwashing

[Nick333]

Okay since I haven't had my coffee yet either what do you think about this.

Everyone is able to admit that all religions seem to be based on good values and human kindness right?

My personal opinion is that the good values and kindness where only put in to get the people interested in religion in the first place. Like any cult that has ever existed you have the front garden where the majority of people exist and see. This is always nice and pretty and always talks about human kindness and goodwill to others. Then when you are really into the religion/cult you start getting more involved in the inner sanctums where they start talking about the risks that others are to your religion/cult.

Once they have you hooked that your religion/cult is only trying to help everyone, you are then open to hear about the enemies of your religion. Once you are in full agreement that certain people are trying to destroy your religion/cult then you are ready to be moved into the back rooms where they start talking about how to stop their enemies destroying your happy little family.

All religions works this way, 90% of the people who follow a religion stay in the front garden and about 2% get to the back room. However it's that 2% of people who justify why the cult/religion was created in the first place. It's about controlling people and then controlling cities/areas/countries and then the world.

This is the problem with just allowing religion without challenging it, you need to keep them on their toes else they can recruit more and more people and then we end up back in the dark ages...

conspiracy theory of note :D

You only have to take a look at the judeo-christian tradition to see the fault in your reasoning.

Judaism as espoused in the old testament is all about obedience to God. Murdering your child, genocide and rape are all acceptable as long as they are done with Gods sanction. Being kind to your neighbour is only important as far as your neighbour belongs to the same tribe.

Being kind to everyone only came about with the introduction of christian, thought which was expanded to encompass all of humanity. Which was, I suppose, the inevitable evolution of monotheistic thought, because to say that there is only one god and only the Jews have his favour is just a little bit bigotted. Given that the Jews were in the process of diaspora at the time, lends itself to the logic of including gentiles into the new jewish sect of christianity.

Im rambling a bit to, but my point is that being nice to others for niceness sake only really came about later on as it became politically neccesary.

Your hypothesis does paint a fairly accurate depiction of religion as we know it today though.

[doobiwan]

Not quite Nick.

If you start in Bereisheit/Genesis, there are no 'Hebrews' , Jews or otherwise they're all people. The first laws we're introduced to are the Noahide laws which are explicitly for everyone and are basically general "be good" laws, no killing, stealing, animal cruelty etc. From the very beginning the position is that G-d's law is for everyone to live in harmony, even non monotheists. Abraham and his family were only singled out later for a specific purpose, my personal opinion is that it's been to be chief planetary whipping boy and scapegoat :p

There are no Torah laws (or new Testament if I'm not mistaken) that advocate Genocide, Rape or anything remotely similar. The Bible is an historical document that recounts the journey of a people, in which is included the laws "Handed to them by G-d". I unfortunately cannot speak for the Quran, I haven't read it.

[GavinMannion]

The Bible is an historical document that recounts the journey of a people, in which is included the laws "Handed to them by G-d". I unfortunately cannot speak for the Quran, I haven't read it.

Don't worry about reading the Quran it has the same story just in different wording.

The bible is as much of a historical document as the first written record of Hansel and Gretal. About as truthful as well...

It's a story, a nice one but that is all it is. The story was written by normal humans and then the winners where decided by Constantine... There is absolutely no mythical power involved.

People always claim that God handed down the laws and basically founded society. Strange that everyone was not constantly killing each other and raping their mothers before Moses got that tablet then isn't it?

[nthdimension]

God did specifically order at least one genocide. The instructions to murder, rape and pillage were very explicit.

Judaism is very clear with regard to revenge not only being acceptable, but necessary.

Christianity is a religion with internal doctrine problems - the old books are fundamentally at odds with the new ones. There is simply no way to reconcile them. It is extremely difficult to adhere to the tenets relating to peaceful co-existence, and most followers lapse into following the dictates of the reptile part of our brains. You're not likely for instance to find any real Christians holding political positions. You will not find any leading armies.

Buddhism may be one of the few religions that has no deities. People have found the need to add them in, usually deities taken from religions that pre-dated Buddhism, but the fundamental religion of Buddhism has none and takes no stance on their existence - they're considered irrelevant.

[GavinMannion]

You're not likely for instance to find any real Christians holding political positions. You will not find any leading armies.

Wow strong and irresponsible words there.
Who decides who is a real christian? GW Bush goes to church all the time and believes in Christ. So does Blair.

What about the presidents and prime ministers in virtually every western country in the world?

Hypocrisy at it's highest point when you try and split Christians and Real Christians...

So do please explain what a real christian is?

[doobiwan]

Actually they were total barbarians. My wife did "Ancient near East" through Unisa last year and it's an eye opener. There are hundreds of "Civilizations" that have come and gone in history that we have little or no record of, having been wiped out by neighbours/invaders. As far as culture goes, some things were considered acceptable that today you'd be hanged for!

My conspiracy theory is that Deities in general created as a way to explain the unexplainable and more importantly, enforce law created by man. What better way to control the suspicious squirrel that man is, than to threaten him with something he can't possibly argue against?

As for the Bible as an historical document, sure there's a lot of Fantasy, but like any similar old book, if you read through the prose, it's basically a history book (okay I say that picking up at Abraham, the rest is more like embellished back story till then) There's is supporting evidence to it's 'general' historical accuracy. (For example, The "Canaanites" are thought to have actually been Greek's based on dig sites in Israel, which have also unearthed relevant cross references to what fits the description of the Israelites)

. . . and Constatine rewrote his version, the Jews still have the original :p

My position on G-d is that, we cannot disprove his/her existence as much as we cannot prove it. My Mommy always taught me to be polite, so it's better to say thank you, just in case ;)

[GavinMannion]

I think the ancient Egyptians would take offense to being called barbarians when they had one of the most civilised societies in the world before christ came about. Of course some things are not accepted any more but a lot of what the bible says is also no longer accepted either.

I don't believe in worshipping something just in case it might exist. Why live in fear, if God does exist then he couldn't care less about us otherwise he would have made himself known by now.

I believe in being polite to things that exist but you don't see me saying prayers to Huium every night just because he might exist or showing something respect even though noone can prove it exists...

[doobiwan]

I didn't say they were all Barbarians ;) But, we're not just talking "Western Monotheist" origins, what of those people that existed before the documented Egyptian civilization? The discussion is with regard to "pre-religion" not just "pre-*****". (!?!? I find it a bit odd that they censor Somebodies name. Oh well.)

Mine is a Western Monotheistic background and my preconception of divinity is that of a single G-d. If I had been brought up Hindu, my sentence would have read "They".

Please don't think I'm preaching or anything, it's totally your right to do whatever you want (And I mean that, it's not meant to be a snide dig or anything). For me I find trying to raise a child(ren) on this totally ****ed up planet difficult enough, I'd rather provide them with the benefit of the traditional upbringing as well as knowledge and ability, to decide for themselves.

Blind Faith in religion or the lack thereof are equally as blind. I can make my decision for myself, but I must provide my kids the right tools for them to do it themselves.

[GavinMannion]

For me I find trying to raise a child(ren) on this totally ****ed up planet difficult enough, I'd rather provide them with the benefit of the traditional upbringing as well as knowledge and ability, to decide for themselves.

Blind Faith in religion or the lack thereof are equally as blind. I can make my decision for myself, but I must provide my kids the right tools for them to do it themselves.

So your answer to that is to force a religion of your choice onto your children and then leave them with the problems of whether they should follow it or take your wrath and give it up?

I took the wrath from my family for not raising my children with religion. If they want to believe when they are old enough to understand that is their decision. I can't stand by and watch them get brainwashed and then go through the turmoil of logic after they have pledged their lives to a church.

In my humble and load opinion you should teach your kids about all the major religions and atheism and then when they are over 18 they can decide which one works for them. They can't really decide before at least 16 as they still need to experience the pain of the world before accepting a religion.

[nthdimension]

GW Bush goes to church all the time and believes in Christ. So does Blair.
And neither comes even close to following the teachings. Believing the guy existed is nothing. Any twit can do that and these two twits do.

[supersunbird]

oh, i love reading up about pre-historic civilizations. Not many traces remain due to altering sea levels, erosion, decay and all those things. There are indications of intercontinental trade between the americas and asia as well as the phoenicians...

Wonder what happened to all those previous peoples souls before there was a bible and such to teach them? Are they in this supposed hell? :rolleyes:

[GavinMannion]

And neither comes even close to following the teachings. Believing the guy existed is nothing. Any twit can do that and these two twits do.

So oh wise and noble teacher :rolleyes: what are the teachings that need to be followed and why can't someone follow the true teachings and be a president anyway?

Does the pope follow the true teachings? What about Ray McCaulley

[supersunbird]

So oh wise and noble teacher :rolleyes: what are the teachings that need to be followed and why can't someone follow the true teachings and be a president anyway?

Does the pope follow the true teachings? What about Ray McCaulley

Cause they make war and ****, and Je sus said that was wrong, you should love everyone...

[supersunbird]

So oh wise and noble teacher :rolleyes: what are the teachings that need to be followed and why can't someone follow the true teachings and be a president anyway?

Does the pope follow the true teachings? What about Ray McCaulley

Cause they make war and ****, and Je sus said that was wrong, you should love everyone...

And Ray McCaulley lives a rich mans life, not giving al lthe money to lift up the poor and what not...

[GavinMannion]

Cause they make war and ****, and Je sus said that was wrong, you should love everyone...

But oh wise and sinister sunbird, God killed more people than Bush. Does that make him a bad Christian?

Just a thought, God cannot be a chrisitan because that would mean he would be following his son. Are there any Godians?

[Nick333]

My position on G-d is that, we cannot disprove his/her existence as much as we cannot prove it. My Mommy always taught me to be polite, so it's better to say thank you, just in case ;)

Thats called Pascals wager and assumes that the existence or non-existence of god has at least a 50/50 chance either way.

This argument falls flat because it basically says that any delusional (supernatural and unsubstantiated) claim should be afforded the same respect as scientific substantiated facts. In other words all the nut jobs who claim that they are abducted by aliens on a regular basis and have been to mars and the other side of the galaxy should be believed just in case they are right.

Because of its lack of scientific evidence the existence of god has the same odds of being true as any other random,extravagant statement.

[supersunbird]

But oh wise and sinister sunbird, God killed more people than Bush. Does that make him a bad Christian?

Just a thought, God cannot be a chrisitan because that would mean he would be following his son. Are there any Godians?

God doesnt exist, so he didn't/doesn't kill anyone ;)

Anyway, I've met one or 2 people that might be considered true Christians, a handful that come close and the rest just call themselves that but they continie in their unrepentant sinfull ways without pause.

I dont know what the Koran says, so I cant judge the behaviour of Muslims compared to what their scriptures say.

[masticore]

Word of warning.

I'm monitoring this thread for any *ahem* liberal traits. W1z4rd has already gone in( voluntarily) and GM looks like he might too.
WTF do you think you are ?! Take your warning and stick it up your arse.

[GavinMannion]

Aha I found the answer to what a true christian is


A true Christian is a person who has put his or her faith and trust in the person of ***** Christ and fact that He died on the cross as payment for sins and rose again on the third day to obtain victory over death and to give eternal life to all who believe in Him. John 1:12 tells us: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” A true Christian is indeed a child of God, a part of God’s true family, and one who has been given new life in Christ. The mark of a true Christian is love for others and obedience to God’s Word (1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:10).

Now I just need to find what part of Gods word I need to follow or can I still sell my daughter in slavery as in Exodus 21:7?

Maybe you can answer this question for me?

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to people from Zimbabwe, but not people from Lesotho. Can you clarify? Why can't I own people from Lesotho?

[Shamelessly stolen from http://www.paulwaters.com/lighter.htm]

[supersunbird]

Because Lesotho is a mockery of a independent state and is thus not a neighboring nation, just a unclaimed 10th province. :D

Oh, I dont even know who you want to answer you...

[GavinMannion]

Because Lesotho is a mockery of a independent state and is thus not a neighboring nation, just a unclaimed 10th province. :D

Oh, I dont even know who you want to answer you...

I don't care who answers really... it will either be some sarcastic rubbish or religious dribble :)

I do think we should take Lesotho away from them though. They have some nice mountains we could build some cool hotels on. They aren't using them for anything useful anyway :D

[doobiwan]

Fantastic idea, I could do with a mountain lodge. Oh wait, what do you mean we don't have any tanks? They what, *borrowed* by Burundian local's, oh bother . . . ;)


So your answer to that is to force a religion of your choice onto your children and then leave them with the problems of whether they should follow it or take your wrath and give it up?

No that's not what I mean. I believe the fundamental teachings about kindness and generosity, and helping your fellow man in need are good ones. The story's and parables are often good illustrators, even just as a point of reference.

Am I going to tell my kids to believe in G-d only to tell them later not too? No, they'll always know where I stand. I do however believe religion (or any other form of common tradition) serves as an important mechanism, or focus point for community. If you have no tradition, you have no reason to break from you day to day grind to celebrate something, or commemorate something with people you otherwise would never meet. I do believe in the human aspect of religion, not the existential part.

My upbringing seems to have been at a counterpoint to yours. I come from a religious but questioning family which involved a few changes of path along the way. I've seen lots of what too much religion can do, I've also seen the damage of doing nothing.

Social effects are long term and will always manifest itself in the children first. Look at America's children, if you want an example of what no tradition does . . . .

[GavinMannion]

Am I going to tell my kids to believe in G-d only to tell them later not too? No, they'll always know where I stand. I do however believe religion (or any other form of common tradition) serves as an important mechanism, or focus point for community. If you have no tradition, you have no reason to break from you day to day grind to celebrate something, or commemorate something with people you otherwise would never meet. I do believe in the human aspect of religion, not the existential part.

I agree that the bible has some good moral stories that children find easy to understand, however I don't agree that society needs a tradition so that we can break from our day to day lives.

We are sufficiently advanced to no longer require religion to lead us in the way of life. The human aspect of religion is nothing more than the human aspect of civilised society.

Yeah the kids in the US are a mess but they are still becoming the top business people in the world and inventing the best things on the internet. Maybe the world is just changing and our old ideas of a perfect society are being challenged?

[killadoob]

US kids are inventing stuff?

i thought it was asians that invented just about every amazing thing :)
without religeon the world would be better off

you wouldnt have so many faiths fighting for nothing in the sky

but total world melt down would happen

also imagine your kids where taught that when u die nothing happens its all over no after life

it would make them shyte themselves and be scared to walk in the road in case they died hahaha

but it would stop child molestation by gay bishops (men of god who feel little children up)

[noxibox]

No that's not what I mean. I believe the fundamental teachings about kindness and generosity, and helping your fellow man in need are good ones. The story's and parables are often good illustrators, even just as a point of reference.

Am I going to tell my kids to believe in G-d only to tell them later not too?
Well we could pull out a long list of the negatives of tradition. Never mind so-called traditional values.

Teaching the positive things you mention requires no mention or involvement of religion. The real world pretty much proves that religion is not a bastion of moral good.

Your children should stop believing in god about the same time they realise that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are also fake.

People meet and socialise everyday over numerous interests. There is no requirement for the existence of religion or traditions.

[noxibox]

Obviously God reformed after he had a child. There is the change in personality from murderous psychopath to gentle loving god. So yes God could be said to be following the goals laid down by his child.

My interpretation from reading the book is that Je'sus was about facing down the order of the day. A similar individual today would be branded an agitator. Probably be arrested and tortured as a potential terrorist. "Why did I come back? This happens every time." A big deal is made about moving away from the old order, the teachings of the old religion.

[Geriatrix]

People act like people, regardless of religion or tradition or any other form of social regulation or rules.

Those concepts are merely used to "prove", justify or excuse mans choices and doings, whether they be good or bad.

[doobiwan]

My kids won't be believing in Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny anyway, but thanks ;)

On many points (I hate multi quoting ;) ) I don't disagree, technically, we don't "need" religion, but you'll almost never get rid of it, and it can be used in a constructive manner. But it needs to know it's place.

As far as those bishops go, well, they'd still be molesting kids, but with absolutely no moral objection, and totally anonymously. At least now we know to suspect all the bishops . . . ;)

[kilo39]

Now I just need to find what part of Gods word I need to follow or can I still sell my daughter in slavery as in Exodus 21:7?

Maybe you can answer this question for me?

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to people from Zimbabwe, but not people from Lesotho. Can you clarify? Why can't I own people from Lesotho?

[Shamelessly stolen from http://www.paulwaters.com/lighter.htm]Dude, you need to read the small print: states very clearly "this book (the new testament) supercedes and makes defunct all writings and instructions of the previous operating manual, Old Testament 1. Note all versions of this software should be flushed to the garbage can of history (as it is a philosophy of hate and separation.) Please comply with this request before making any further calls on this OS: Christianity 2."

(for evidence of the nefarious deeds of the 1st Testament please refer to the wars of George Bush, Israel, and more closer to home P.W. Botha.)

Once you have read and complied with this directive you may be permitted to run OS 2: The New Testament."

[reduct ends]

[GavinMannion]

Dude, you need to read the small print: states very clearly "this book (the new testament) supercedes and makes defunct all writings and instructions of the previous operating manual, Old Testament 1. Note all versions of this software should be flushed to the garbage can of history (as it is a philosophy of hate and separation.) Please comply with this request before making any further calls on this OS: Christianity 2."

(for evidence of the nefarious deeds of the 1st Testament please refer to the wars of George Bush, Israel, and more closer to home P.W. Botha.)

Once you have read and complied with this directive you may be permitted to run OS 2: The New Testament."

[reduct ends]

Oh okay. So everything that God handed down is wrong and his sons teachings are the way to go... That must p!ss God off...

he sends down his son to teach his word. His son then decides he wants all the power so he changes all the teachings to suit him. No wonder god didn't rescue him from the cross.

Or :D maybe Christ was the angel that was struck down for arguing against God and he decided the best way to get back at him was to pretend that he was the son of god and convert everyone into his way of life. That would explain god never helping him while he was on earth?

So are all chrstians really satanists?:eek:

[Alan]

WTF do you think you are ?! Take your warning and stick it up your arse.

Ooooh touchy :eek: . I think I'm Alanf85. I could be wrong but I'm sure it is says so somewhere here. Umm no I wont thanks but feel free to stick it up your own arse:sick: if that's what your into:o .

[GavinMannion]

Ooooh touchy :eek: . I think I'm Alanf85. I could be wrong but I'm sure it is says so somewhere here. Umm no I wont thanks but feel free to stick it up your own arse:sick: if that's what your into:o .

Hey you never told me if I made it onto your liberal list?????

I know I failed the test but can I be on it anyway? I have been lying awake at night worrying about this list, please can you put me on it???

PS: hows your bum buddy (confederados) doing?

[Alan]

Hey you never told me if I made it onto your liberal list?????

I know I failed the test but can I be on it anyway? I have been lying awake at night worrying about this list, please can you put me on it???

PS: hows your bum buddy (confederados) doing?

No you haven't made it yet. You still have a little way to go.

No. Relax give it time. You cannot change who you are. Maybe take up bowling to take your mind off it. Plus it will tire you out so you can sleep at night.

I just said my arse is a no-go area:cool: . Ask masticore about those things:sick: . He likes to go around telling people to stick things in their bum:o . Who knows you might make his day.:eek:

Why don't you ask confederados.

[GavinMannion]

He seems to have stopped talking to me? I feel so ostracised.

Can you start a thread with all the people who are on your list and their rankings on the list so we have something to aim for?

[GavinMannion]

Hey this is the second most commented on thread in this section now.... Can we get another 45 replies to make it number 1 and try not get it closed down either.

[doobiwan]

If you're feeling out and lonely why not join a social club?

There's a really big one you can try, the name escapes me, but it's headed by some German dude named Benedict something or other, and they seem pretty popular. They've got clubhouses everywhere, and have spun off a number of copy cats.

Only problem is that the girls are a bit prudish and some of the chapter heads look at the boys funny. ;)

[GavinMannion]

Only problem is that the girls are a bit prudish and some of the chapter heads look at the boys funny. ;)

lol,

Seriously though you do you think the RCC will ever allow their priests to act like normal males?

[doobiwan]

I have my doubts. It's like asking "Do you think the Saudi's will ever let their woman wear mini skirts in public?"

Logic says at some point in history they have to give, but history says that logic is always the first to go . . .

I'm also very impressed with this thread, nice going :)

[Claymore]

lol,

Seriously though you do you think the RCC will ever allow their priests to act like normal males?

Nope. They can't even relax on contraception, despite it not being a Biblical issue, and despite their ban being responsible for huge amounts of misery.

[GavinMannion]

Which brings another point to this argument.

Does anyone know why the RCC bans contraception? I mentioned a while ago that they should be taken to court for accessory to murder. They willingly allow hundreds of thousands of people to die every year and countless orphans being born for no apparent reason...

Could one of the religious stalkers on this thread, I know you are there, explain that logic to me please?

[supersunbird]

Its got to do with that crock of be fruitful and multiply and not to waste your seed.

[GavinMannion]

But does the RCC subsidise the cost of raising children in this day and age or should that just be left to Gods will??

Instead of giving my 2 kids the best that I can I should give my 10 kids sweet bugger all?

[noxibox]

I think it is at least partly a control issue. What better way to further enslave people than to undermine a pleasurable bonding activity? How can you make them fear for the state of their immortal soul when they're lying happy with their lover?

As we all know their God created some really horrible things, like nudity and sex.

The church, both Catholic and Protestant, has typically been opposed to sex for anything other than making children. And even then they only accepted it grudgingly. If you listen to the rhetoric you'll find that they consider children a necessary consequence, a punishment, for continuing to engage in sex.

[noxibox]

Instead of giving my 2 kids the best that I can I should give my 10 kids sweet bugger all?
More little minds to fill with their nonsense to swell their cult.

[GavinMannion]

The church, both Catholic and Protestant, has typically been opposed to sex for anything other than making children. And even then they only accepted it grudgingly. If you listen to the rhetoric you'll find that they consider children a necessary consequence, a punishment, for continuing to engage in sex.

Now if that is not enough reason to stop believing in god then I don't know what is :D

I wonder if that was the reason I left the RCC? It's been so long I can't remember. It must have been that or the weird looks I was getting from the priest :eek:

[doobiwan]

I guess that's one of the reasons Madonna got into Kabalah ;)

1. It not only condones sex for pleasure, but you get bonus points if you do it on the Sabbath
2. It also has a section somewhat comparable to the Kama Sutra
3. There are a number approved methods of contraception.

[GavinMannion]

Hmm maybe this Kabalah needs more investigating... sounds good...

[Nick333]

Which brings another point to this argument.

Does anyone know why the RCC bans contraception? I mentioned a while ago that they should be taken to court for accessory to murder. They willingly allow hundreds of thousands of people to die every year and countless orphans being born for no apparent reason...

Could one of the religious stalkers on this thread, I know you are there, explain that logic to me please?

Sorry Im not a religious stalker, but I think I can explain. Its because:


Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.

Everybody now.

[GavinMannion]

Monty Python :D....

Should we say they are the defacto experts on religion now?

[Nick333]

Monty Python :D....

Should we say they are the defacto experts on religion now?

Ja why not, they did an excellent job of exposing the funnier side of religious bull****.

[chiskop]

But does the RCC subsidise the cost of raising children in this day and age or should that just be left to Gods will??

Instead of giving my 2 kids the best that I can I should give my 10 kids sweet bugger all?

Well, you could always sell them for medical experiments. :D

(freudian typo: typed medical aids)

[nthdimension]

Frank Zappa's Catholic Girls (http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Frank-Zappa/Catholic-Girls.html) :)

[GavinMannion]

lol

[riscbroker]

Splendid thread. FSM is pretty good but I remain devoted to good ol' Bob

www.subgenius.com

[GavinMannion]

Okay that is weird.... time to go home so I'll check it out some more in the morning.

/welcome to myadsl. If you post a message in the intro section TIAL will ninja you. Not sure why but it just happens?

[Zabzoo]

woooohooo, i'm subscribing to this thread, I think its gonna get interesting!!!!!!!!

[IamCanadian]

I'm throwing my hat in the ring.

Abstinence is better than contraception!

Any takers.

[Highflyer_GP]

LOL the only guys that would vouch for abstinence in this day and age are those who can't get it up.

Abstinence was probably written into religions by some horny high order priests who couldn't get laid. Either that or it was written in due to a lack of successful contraceptives during those days because there were no means of controlling the population back then. The only guarenteed means of controlling people was through religion.

[ghoti]

I'm throwing my hat in the ring.

Abstinence is better than contraception!

Any takers.

And no drinking is better than drinking. Things like sex, eating and drugs like booze are some things you just cant ask humans not to do. Humans will be humans.

[IamCanadian]

Abstinence was probably written into religions by some horny high order priests who couldn't get laid.

Just an observation, but if abstinence was practised during the rise of the RCC, then the RCC would probably have been much smaller. A much smaller RCC would have resulted in less chaos. All your religious problems would be solved. Maybe even no crusades!

Chalk one up for abstinence.

[IamCanadian]

And no drinking is better than drinking. Things like sex, eating and drugs like booze are some things you just cant ask humans not to do. Humans will be humans.

Correct. Humans will be humans.

It would indeed be difficult to ask humans not to smoke, do drugs, have sex, or drink. But if they did, the resulting net effect on this world would be profound.

[Nick333]

Correct. Humans will be humans.

It would indeed be difficult to ask humans not to smoke, do drugs, have sex, or drink. But if they did, the resulting net effect on this world would be profound.

Yep the whole world would become as ****ing boring as canada.

Edit: Not to mention that if people stopped having sex there wouldnt be anyone left after a while.

[IamCanadian]

Yep the whole world would become as ****ing boring as canada.

Edit: Not to mention that if people stopped having sex there wouldnt be anyone left after a while.

Maybe your parents should had lived in Canada and then decided to abstain from having sex. What would have happened?

[ghoti]

Correct. Humans will be humans.

It would indeed be difficult to ask humans not to smoke, do drugs, have sex, or drink. But if they did, the resulting net effect on this world would be profound.

Yeah, if they legalized weed imagine how many wars would end ;)

[Reason]

Actually, religions like to tell people that sex is bad, because then they can guilt trip a large segment of the population. It is also one of the few inherent human desires that can be suppressed without obviously and immediately damaging the person.

E.g. If breathing is a sin, most people could only stop sinning for a couple of minutes before they die.

Or if drinking water was a sin, most people could only stop sinning for a couple of days before they die.

[Nick333]

Maybe your parents should had lived in Canada and then decided to abstain from having sex. What would have happened?

Um gee, let me see... I probably wouldnt have been born and then I wouldnt have been able to inspire the deadly sin of anger in hypocrites.

[IamCanadian]

Actually, religions like to tell people that sex is bad, because then they can guilt trip a large segment of the population.

Correct(sort of).

Sex according the the Bible is VERY good. The Bible also teaches that when the gift of sex is misused it results in tremendous problems. Witness AIDS, child p*rn, prostitution, etc etc.

Humans create religions and then go on to say that sex is bad completely contradicting what the Bible actually teaches about sex.

[IamCanadian]

Um gee, let me see... I probably wouldnt have been born and then I wouldnt have been able to inspire the deadly sin of anger in hypocrites.

For once you are correct.

[Nick333]

For once you are correct.

:D

[raoul]

GavinMannion,

A calendar just for you.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Pope_Benedict_XVI_to_star_in_calend_11082006.html

:o)

[doobiwan]

Actually "No sex before marriage" is all legalise. The problem is that before contraception, if the woman fell pregnant there'd be no one to look after her or the child, the is a contractual undertaking for the men to take responsibility for their actions, by, as per usual, punishing the woman instead . . .

Personally, my kids better live with their partners for a year before they think of getting married . . .

[Nameite]

That is just dumb, why dont we then find all the fossils just mixed together? We dont, cause they are different species in different layers because they come from different epochs.

Hey hey hey, my adsl is back and so am I :p

First to answer Supersunbird's question. If the whole world back then was like a zoo, with every creature living amongst one another, then yes we would see fossils mixed together. Unfortunately, the only ones grouped together would be mostly of the same kind (ie in herds.)
But there are fossils mixed together, the ancient "horses" lived amongst one another though they were suppose to be a couple of million years away from each other.
Some references on this website, too lazy to quote exact ones:http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm
Dont mind the start of this link :p Its the references given in there that I'm refering to.

Then if u're bored and wanna get confused, read this site: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm

And lastly, could be a myth or maybe aliens from 300million years ago!?
I present to u....bell in coal :
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/bell/bell.htm
http://www.bennerwc.com/ancientman/04_bell.html

Since u guys gave me evolution websites as references, I might as well...
Hehe this will be my last post on this subject, thank u ladies and gentleman :p

[Kommedoor]

The way to change the world is to change people's minds. As more and more people openly discuss the fact that "God" and "Allah" are completely imaginary, the world becomes a better place. The people who believe in "religion" look sillier and sillier. Eventually, religion becomes a fringe activity that is meaningless.

My view

[Kommedoor]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DzJuz2qVz_E

[Nameite]

The world is getting better? In what way? In ways that South African are being slaughtered for money almost everyday, woman and children are getting raped more and more. Average death rate have increase way more than 10 years ago. Ppl are cheating each other from businesses, hijacking, killing, drugs...everything increased! And also Telkom!
Non believers of god dont give a rat @ss on what will happen after death, so its all for themselves and stuff others....u call that a better world?

But i do agree on one thing, this world is getting more and more open, like new reporters undressing and stuff, hey this world is getting better :P

[Zabzoo]

The world is getting better? In what way? In ways that South African are being slaughtered for money almost everyday, woman and children are getting raped more and more. Average death rate have increase way more than 10 years ago. Ppl are cheating each other from businesses, hijacking, killing, drugs...everything increased! And also Telkom!
Non believers of god dont give a rat @ss on what will happen after death, so its all for themselves and stuff others....u call that a better world?

But i do agree on one thing, this world is getting more and more open, like new reporters undressing and stuff, hey this world is getting better :P

TWO THINGS -

1) HAHA to -> "everything increased! And also Telkom!" :D
2) Who said life was fair ey? :sick:

Romans 9:6
-----------
"6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel."

[Nameite]

Hey I just came up with a brilliant proposal, an experiement that will prove evolution or religion once and for all.

Now its simple but lengthy, but firstly we breed a certain fly or any fast reproducing organism for that matter....under a selected condition. And what we do is we as human artificially pick out the ones that we think wont survive. So this means it will be faster than natural selection.
Then we come up with an aim, eg. to see if flys can evolve into a whale....
The we just keep breeding the flys, make them swim for a few minute everyday and hopefully in a couple of million years time we'll get full grown whales! Coz mutation and microevolution can go back and forth right? ;)

Then to prove religion will be even simpler and consist of two ways....which one is the quick way and the other is a bit longer.
The longer way is, just live and see, see if the so-called end of the world will happen, or the fifth buddha will arive etc etc.
The other is....kill urself! Then u will know life after death and see if u see god or u dont see anything at all.
How easy is that?

Now we just need a dedicated group of several generations for this experiment and hopefully no one else in the world will debate about this topic in future!

[GavinMannion]

Just an observation, but if abstinence was practised during the rise of the RCC, then the RCC would probably have been much smaller. A much smaller RCC would have resulted in less chaos. All your religious problems would be solved. Maybe even no crusades!

Chalk one up for abstinence.

? What's in the water in Canada?

If the RCC was smaller then some other religious nuts (Protestant, Jewish, Islam) would have just been bigger and the same atrocities would still have happened.

Nameite: Finding one or two abnormalities in fossil records is in no way 'proof' against evolution. You have things like volcanoes, earthquakes and many other natural reasons for any of the things you showed us as 'proof'.

Famous quote of the weekend. Who said it?


"Organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate. The world is near escalating to World War Three and where are the leaders of each religion?

[supersunbird]

Sounds like something Reason said, but please tell us...

[GavinMannion]

You need to read some more news... Really famous gay dude.....

I think the quote is accurate though.

[Alan]

Let me guess.

Elton John

[GavinMannion]

Hey the local [liberal] gets it :D