Religion?

[Enresshou]

I'd say I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic. I don't discount the possibility of a god(s), but I believe our universe is totally explainable through natural phenomena (some of which, I have to say, are just as amazing as the fantastic tales from any mythos), and--as the supernatural isn't detectable in the realm of the natural--it's not something I concern myself with.

If anything, I'd say empathy and reason are my religions. Reason is for understanding others and solving problems, empathy is loving one another in spite of them.

 

[edzepp]

There´s no difference between clergy explaining things and scientists explaining things, but for scientists are basing it off facts, and are giving you ways you can repeat the experiment and see for themselves what they have said.

Why cant gravity be accepted as a law of God´s creation?


Big Bang? The Big bang theory itself was put forth first by a priest, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, as proof that God set things in motion.

Evolution? The Islamic thinker Al-Jahiz was the first to link humans to apes, and yet he stressed on how such a design and planning must be the result of Allah.

Science has yet to exclude god, and if even the Catholic church has said that the Bicle is fallible, and shouldnt be taken literally, there isnt any reason for one to fight against science.

I know that. What I was describing was a personal conflict that I had for a few years which is mostly resolved in my mind now (human evolution). I'm certainly not disputing that science can help affirm faith. I think that most 'God vs. Science' fights are kind of stupid anyway.

 

[fade]

I seriously doubt that Al-Jahiz was the first person to link humans to apes. That credit probably goes to the first person to see an ape, and pretty much every person after that to see an ape. To wit, the translation of orang-utan is roughly old man of the forest. Gorillas look for all the world like a man in makeup, especially in the face.

 

[Bubble181]

Soooo.....Dave in drag = urang-utan?

 

[fade]

One thing about the Big Bang to clarify: the postulation is not that everything came from nothing. It's more that the pre-bang state is unknown (and possibly unknowable in our current frame of thinking--see earlier Fleeberzoid discussion with Chazwozel for reference). What we know may be traced back to some sort of timeless hypercompressed bit, but that doesn't mean it's not some offshoot from some adjacent "universe" with different manners of nature or a violent leakage or conversion of what we call energy from some other state.

 

[figmentPez]

but I believe our universe is totally explainable through natural phenomena

That's kind of the way science works. If something can be observed, it can be explained. The explanation doesn't have to be simple or obvious, it doesn't even have to be right, it just has to be an explanation that can be somehow modeled either through some sort of empirical testing or though pure mathematics. There is no such thing as "can't be explained" in science. The only time that happens is when the scientists aren't being creative enough, but that's just a temporary setback. The question is not "Can a naturalistic explanation be devised for what has been observed?" (for the answer is always "yes"), but "Is a naturalistic explanation the most reasonable?"

 

[Denbrought]

but I believe our universe is totally explainable through natural phenomena

That's kind of the way science works. If something can be observed, it can be explained. The explanation doesn't have to be simple or obvious, it doesn't even have to be right, it just has to be an explanation that can be somehow modeled either through some sort of empirical testing or though pure mathematics. There is no such thing as "can't be explained" in science. The only time that happens is when the scientists aren't being creative enough, but that's just a temporary setback. The question is not "Can a naturalistic explanation be devised for what has been observed?" (for the answer is always "yes"), but "Is a naturalistic explanation the most reasonable?"[/QUOTE]
So what is your criteria for using "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say an invisible genie in the sky did it", unless I missed your point?

 

[figmentPez]

So what is your criteria for using "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say an invisible genie in the sky did it", unless I missed your point?

Strawman. I'm not saying that "an invisible genie in the sky", and no you can't convince me that Jesus Christ is the exact same thing. An undefined "genie" is completely different than a God who is described in detail.

A good example of when a metaphysical explanation is the most rational conclusion would be Jesus Christ being the eternal Son of God become flesh, as recorded by the Gospels. It is possible to explain the Gospel accounts (and the prophecy of the Old Testament) by naturalistic means, but those explanations require far more conjecture and speculation than simply accepting that they are true and reliable accounts of historical events.

 

[Denbrought]

So what is your criteria for using "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say an invisible genie in the sky did it", unless I missed your point?

Strawman. I'm not saying that "an invisible genie in the sky", and no you can't convince me that Jesus Christ is the exact same thing. An undefined "genie" is completely different than a God who is described in detail.

A good example of when a metaphysical explanation is the most rational conclusion would be Jesus Christ being the eternal Son of God become flesh, as recorded by the Gospels. It is possible to explain the Gospel accounts (and the prophecy of the Old Testament) by naturalistic means, but those explanations require far more conjecture and speculation than simply accepting that they are true and reliable accounts of historical events.[/QUOTE]
Okay, then "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say Jesus Christ/God/Trinity did it."

I don't think I can quite grasp your argument... Aren't you just using circular logic by taking the Gospels as a reliable account just because it's the word-of-God?

Also, if a circus magician were to make a dove appear out of his hat, how would it be rational to say that because explaining the trick requires far more conjecture and speculation it is better to simply accept his word that it is magic.

 

[figmentPez]

Okay, then "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say Jesus Christ/God/Trinity did it."

Well, in the case of miracles, that's a very good reason. When we know that what was observed is contrary to what is known to medicine/sciene, and that what happened is consistent with what is know of God's character, it becomes reasonable to believe that it was a miracle. It is not reason to stop all medical inquiry, or to stop studying the human body, but it can certainly be reason to rejoice when the bone heals during chemotherapy, while cancer cells die and all other new cell growth should have as well.

I don't think I can quite grasp your argument... Aren't you just using circular logic by taking the Gospels as a reliable account just because it's the word-of-God?

Certainly not. We know the Gospels are a reliable account for many other reasons. We know that we have reasonably accurate copies because of the sheer number of copies that exist and how little deviation there is between them. We know from other historical accounts that Jesus Christ really did exist and was crucified. We know that the apostles really did exist, and were those who knew Jesus Christ personally, and that their accounts were written during their lifetime by the apostles themselves or by those who directly interviewed them. We know... etc. etc. There is a great wealth of reasons to believe that scripture is exactly what it says it is, beyond just saying "God said it, thus it is so..."

Also, if a circus magician were to make a dove appear out of his hat, how would it be rational to say that because explaining the trick requires far more conjecture and speculation it is better to simply accept his word that it is magic.

Well, if we didn't care about this "magic" and what it means for the rest of the world, and all the implications of it, then it might be simpler just to take the magician's word. But that's certainly not the case with Jesus Christ, is it? If Jesus Christ is God, then that demands even more questions and issues than are even suggested by a dove trick. Saying that the Gospels are true, and all that implies, is not a simple matter, and it is not to be weighed lightly against the alternative.

EDIT: I should also add that I'm talking about unfounded speculation and conjecture, not anything akin to forming a hypothesis. It's one thing to say "it's just a trick, I don't know how it was done but it's not magic" and something else all together to say "Well, it's possible it was done this way, and that fits wholly with what was observed during the performance, and with what is known to be physically possible."

 

[Denbrought]

Okay, then "let's stop searching for a rational answer, let's say Jesus Christ/God/Trinity did it."

Well, in the case of miracles, that's a very good reason. When we know that what was observed is contrary to what is know by medical/scienfic knowledge, and that what happened is consistent with what is know of God's character, it becomes reasonable to believe that it was a miracle.[/quote]
So any anomaly in a system that fits the bill for God's character is a miracle? Can't say I agree with that, but okay.

I don't think I can quite grasp your argument... Aren't you just using circular logic by taking the Gospels as a reliable account just because it's the word-of-God?

Certainly not. We know the Gospels are a reliable account for many other reasons. We know that we have reasonably accurate copies because of the sheer number of copies that exist and how little deviation there is between them. We know from other historical accounts that Jesus Christ really did exist and was crucified. We know that the apostles really did exist, and were those who knew Jesus Christ personally, and that their accounts were written during their lifetime by the apostles themselves or by those who directly interviewed them. We know... etc. etc. There is a great wealth of reasons to believe that scripture is exactly what it says it is, beyond just saying "God said it, thus it is so..."

We, however, don't know what was exaggerated, omitted or dimmed in favour of a better spreading of the tales of the Son of God. In a similar light, many miracles (and lets not forget the resurrection) could have not been so, if at all. But I can't really argue miracles because of the whole "let's not look at it rationally" part >_>

Also, if a circus magician were to make a dove appear out of his hat, how would it be rational to say that because explaining the trick requires far more conjecture and speculation it is better to simply accept his word that it is magic.

Well, if we didn't care about this "magic" and what it means for the rest of the world, and all the implications of it, then it might be simpler just to take the magician's word. But that's certainly not the case with Jesus Christ, is it? If Jesus Christ is God, then that demands even more questions and issues than are even suggested by a dove trick. Saying that the Gospels are true, and all that implies, is not a simple matter, and it is not to be weighed lightly against the alternative.

So you're saying that we should put the affirmation that Jesus Christ is God under a closer scrutiny because it's consequences are much more relevant? Pointing at things and saying 'miracle' is not a good start, because you're hand-waving something much more relevant than a circus performer's ace trick.

 

[edzepp]

One thing about the Big Bang to clarify: the postulation is not that everything came from nothing. It's more that the pre-bang state is unknown (and possibly unknowable in our current frame of thinking--see earlier Fleeberzoid discussion with Chazwozel for reference). What we know may be traced back to some sort of timeless hypercompressed bit, but that doesn't mean it's not some offshoot from some adjacent "universe" with different manners of nature or a violent leakage or conversion of what we call energy from some other state.

Ah. Thank you. I'm not the best person to talk to about science.

 

[figmentPez]

So any anomaly in a system that fits the bill for God's character is a miracle? Can't say I agree with that, but okay.

Well, I wouldn't consider that to be the whole of what should be considered, but it's a fairly good starting place for talking about generalities.

We, however, don't know what was exaggerated, omitted or dimmed in favour of a better spreading of the tales of the Son of God. In a similar light, many miracles (and lets not forget the resurrection) could have not been so, if at all. But I can't really argue miracles because of the whole "let's not look at it rationally" part >_>

Actually, we do have a pretty good idea of what could have been exaggerated, omitted, or dimmed. The prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled, which are quite specific, were written hundreds of years before His birth, and we have many copies of those scriptures. We know about human nature, and have accounts from historians who didn't believe the stories told by the Apostles. We know how fast Christianity spread as a religion, and we know how quickly things were written down, and we can compare that to what it would take for exaggeration to be added when there are thousands of witnesses to events. We can look at the dedication, to the point of death, to see if the Apostles believed their own stories. We can look at the Roman reaction to see if the tomb really was empty.

Which brings me to the point of asking, why can't we talk about miracles like the resurrection? We have an empty tomb and no body. We have definite accounts that Jesus Christ was killed and buried, and yet neither the unbelieving Jews nor the Romans stepped forward to say that Jesus was in the tomb, or to say where His body was. There isn't even an allegation that the Apostle's stole it, except by modern theorists.

So you're saying that we should put the affirmation that Jesus Christ is God under a closer scrutiny because it's consequences are much more relevant? Pointing at things and saying 'miracle' is not a good start, because you're hand-waving something much more relevant than a circus performer's ace trick.

No, I'm saying that we should take assertion of the truth of the Gospels very seriously because if they are true it has profound implications on the nature of the world. It is most certainly not an easy or simple thing to say "the Gospels are true". It does not take less thought or reasoning, it takes more. It does not simplify matters, it makes them terrifically more complex. Thus accepting them as truth is done so not as a way to avoid study, but because the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of their accuracy that any other position is incredulous.

 

[Gill Kaiser]

I was consciously raised by my parents to be free to make my own choices regarding religions and philosophy, for which I shall be eternally grateful. I was and am predominantly an atheist, although I'm happy to entertain the notion of a cosmic universe-creating force of nature that some might call 'god', but others might call the natural laws of reality.

I think that in the absence of focused religious indoctrination at a young age, and if information about how the world works were made available to them, nearly all children would end up atheist, or at least agnostic. As I see it, religious thinking originated from the drive to explain the unexplainable, and therefore from ignorance. However, it continues to spread itself through the generations in spite of all the new information we have as a species, because it usually has as a central tenet the drive to pass it on to others - leaving children a prime target, because they have not yet formed their own understanding of the world.

To me, the idea of faith, as belief in the absence of evidence, is inherently ludicrous. The beliefs and writings extolled by the various religions seem to me to be quite transparently a collection of ancient superstitions, folk tales, morality fables, propaganda and retconning. I've never really been able to fully get my head around how anyone could take it all seriously.

Now, there's plenty of good stuff in the teachings of most religions, I'm not denying that. To take the most obvious example, Jesus, as he is written in the Bible, seems like a class act. I have no problem with looking on the Bible and other religious texts as historical manuscripts of cultural importance, but I think that more and more the good stuff/core teachings of religions are ignored, and the pointless and obviously archaic stuff is made a big deal of.

I worry about the effect religion continues to have on the world, because I think that it does more harm than good. It may make many people happier in their lives, but is that worth all the religious extremists, the interference in education (the evolution/creationist 'debate' - hah!), and the hampering of scientific progress such as stem-cell based medical research, based upon religious belief alone? Faith is a terrifying force because it cannot be touched by reason; if somebody truly believes that another group of people are evil and godless, it makes it much more likely that they commit downright stupid acts that defy common sense.

Another thing I dislike about most religions is the emphasis on the afterlife over this life. They restrict people's behaviour in this life, but promise 'paradise' after they die. The fact is, nobody can possiblity know what happens after death, but I see no reason to believe that anything happens at all, except oblivion. That religious people purposefully narrow their experiences in this life, which is quite probably the only life we are given, because they're holding out for heaven, seems like a huge waste to me. On top of that, religions are bullies, because they also threaten their followers with Hell - the perfect way to control people by fear.

 

[Denbrought]

We, however, don't know what was exaggerated, omitted or dimmed in favour of a better spreading of the tales of the Son of God. In a similar light, many miracles (and lets not forget the resurrection) could have not been so, if at all. But I can't really argue miracles because of the whole "let's not look at it rationally" part >_>

Actually, we do have a pretty good idea of what could have been exaggerated, omitted, or dimmed. The prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled, which are quite specific, were written hundreds of years before His birth, and we have many copies of those scriptures. We know about human nature, and have accounts from historians who didn't believe the stories told by the Apostles. We know how fast Christianity spread as a religion, and we know how quickly things were written down, and we can compare that to what it would take for exaggeration to be added when there are thousands of witnesses to events. We can look at the dedication, to the point of death, to see if the Apostles believed their own stories. We can look at the Roman reaction to see if the tomb really was empty.

Which brings me to the point of asking, why can't we talk about miracles like the resurrection? We have an empty tomb and no body. We have definite accounts that Jesus Christ was killed and buried, and yet neither the unbelieving Jews nor the Romans stepped forward to say that Jesus was in the tomb, or to say where His body was. There isn't even an allegation that the Apostle's stole it, except by modern theorists.

So there is an allegation, and it doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility. I don't think we can talk about miracles because they can be rationalized, to a greater or smaller extent. The problem is that neither you nor me were there, and only one of us believes in the inerrant Book. Also, the number of copies mean nothing, making a thousand copies of a lie doesn't make it true.
I don't think we'll reach any good point by discussing the finer parts of this--it'll always come down to blind miracle vs conjectural rationale.

So you're saying that we should put the affirmation that Jesus Christ is God under a closer scrutiny because it's consequences are much more relevant? Pointing at things and saying 'miracle' is not a good start, because you're hand-waving something much more relevant than a circus performer's ace trick.

No, I'm saying that we should take assertion of the truth of the Gospels very seriously because if they are true it has profound implications on the nature of the world. It is most certainly not an easy or simple thing to say "the Gospels are true". It does not take less thought or reasoning, it takes more. It does not simplify matters, it makes them terrifically more complex. Thus accepting them as truth is done so not as a way to avoid study, but because the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of their accuracy that any other position is incredulous.

If it comes down to faith vs incredulity, then yep, a big hurdle appears. The implications of something like the existence of God (and the divinity of Christ) are not minor enough for me to take the word of a book, no matter how widespread or old. I'd rather have a lab report with some proof on it, but belief precedes proof so eh.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Well, in the case of miracles, that's a very good reason. When we know that what was observed is contrary to what is known to medicine/sciene, and that what happened is consistent with what is know of God's character, it becomes reasonable to believe that it was a miracle.

 

[@Li3n]

One thing about the Big Bang to clarify: the postulation is not that everything came from nothing. It's more that the pre-bang state is unknown (and possibly unknowable in our current frame of thinking--see earlier Fleeberzoid discussion with Chazwozel for reference). What we know may be traced back to some sort of timeless hypercompressed bit, but that doesn't mean it's not some offshoot from some adjacent "universe" with different manners of nature or a violent leakage or conversion of what we call energy from some other state.

Vacuum energy sure sounds like from nothing (close enough to the concept anyway, though the question of where the energy came from still remains).

And i did add CHAOS there too, to cover everything...

Still, i don't see how an infinity loop or ex nihilo are any more common sense then a deity doing it. (of course there where religions where the world came into being on its own too, and deities with it).

I think that in the absence of focused religious indoctrination at a young age, and if information about how the world works were made available to them, nearly all children would end up atheist, or at least agnostic.

And you'd be wrong... from what i can tell focused religious indoctrination most often then not results in either a crazy religious person or an atheist that hates religion...

As for causing more harm then good, Marx was wrong, getting rid of it didn't improve things one bit, people are very good at ignoring reason with no help from the magic guy in the sky...

 

[Krisken]

I'm agnostic. When i die, I'll be all dressed up and probably have no place to go.

Maybe.

It's fun to read this thread without getting involved. Nice to know we can be civil when least expected, even if we don't agree on something as dividing as religion.

 

[@Li3n]

on something as dividing as religion.

This is the internet... everything is as dividing as religion...

 

[figmentPez]

So there is an allegation, and it doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility.

And you just declared that it's more reasonable than the alternative without any rational consideration given. That's not logical. The tomb was under armed Roman guard. The greatest military force in the area was guarding the tomb because they were afraid of a Jewish uprising if any of the religious sects claiming to have found the messiah managed to gain a strong enough following. The Jews and the Romans of the day didn't even consider such accusations reasonable because of the absurd notion of the Apostles (who were busy hiding and denying they even knew Jesus) stealing the body away from trained Roman soldiers, leaving no evidence, and not a word of contradiction. Yet you proclaim it to be feasible without any consideration of the situation or historical evidence.

I don't think we can talk about miracles because they can be rationalized, to a greater or smaller extent. The problem is that neither you nor me were there, and only one of us believes in the inerrant Book. Also, the number of copies mean nothing, making a thousand copies of a lie doesn't make it true.
I don't think we'll reach any good point by discussing the finer parts of this--it'll always come down to blind miracle vs conjectural rationale.

Ah, two more strawmen. First, just because a thousand copies of a lie is still a lie, that does not mean that the copies have no meaning. I never claimed they were true because there were copies, I said that we know that the Gospels we have today are the Gospels that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John originally wrote because of the numerous copies of the work. That doesn't make them true, that simply means they're accurate to what was originally written. That is significant when considering the evidence as a whole, even if it does not prove truth in and of itself.

Secondly, I don't see my position as "blind miracle". I've been arguing all along for conjectural rationale. Rational conjecture based on available evidence. You're the one who is following blind skepticism, rejecting any and all information out of hand, with strawmen arguments, not even bothering to consider logic or reason when rejecting what I have put forth. You have rejected concepts put forth as summations as if your twisted rewrites were the whole of the arugment.

If it comes down to faith vs incredulity, then yep, a big hurdle appears. The implications of something like the existence of God (and the divinity of Christ) are not minor enough for me to take the word of a book, no matter how widespread or old. I'd rather have a lab report with some proof on it, but belief precedes proof so eh.

I must apologize, my vocabulary failed me. I'm not sure if it was my aphasia, or I just should have used the dictionary more. I meant incredible, as without credit, not incredulous. I find no credit to be found in alternate explanations to explain the history of the Gospels, both the history presented therein, and the Historical accounts surrounding their writing and subsequent impact on the world.

Here you present a third strawman. The evidence in favor of the Bible being true is not simply in it being widespread or old. That's an unwarranted and frankly ridiculous assertion and frankly is contrary to what I've been saying.

As for your preference for lab reports, fine. That's a very very narrow requirement for evidence, far too narrow for my tastes. There is a lot that happens in this world without a lab test to accompany it.

 

[Denbrought]

So there is an allegation, and it doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility.

And you just declared that it's more reasonable than the alternative without any rational consideration given. That's not logical. The tomb was under armed Roman guard. The greatest military force in the area was guarding the tomb because they were afraid of a Jewish uprising if any of the religious sects claiming to have found the messiah managed to gain a strong enough following. The Jews and the Romans of the day didn't even consider such accusations reasonable because of the absurd notion of the Apostles (who were busy hiding and denying they even knew Jesus) stealing the body away from trained Roman soldiers, leaving no evidence, and not a word of contradiction. Yet you proclaim it to be feasible without any consideration of the situation or historical evidence. [/quote]
More reasonable than resurrection? Yes. But then again, from my point of view there's a myriad of near-improbable things that are also more reasonable. What I did say is that it an alternative, so it should be considered. Same as an alternative to a godless universe is your view of it, no matter how illogical it may seem to me.

I don't think we can talk about miracles because they can be rationalized, to a greater or smaller extent. The problem is that neither you nor me were there, and only one of us believes in the inerrant Book. Also, the number of copies mean nothing, making a thousand copies of a lie doesn't make it true.
I don't think we'll reach any good point by discussing the finer parts of this--it'll always come down to blind miracle vs conjectural rationale.

Ah, two more strawmen. First, just because a thousand copies of a lie is still a lie, that does not mean that the copies have no meaning. I never claimed they were true because there were copies, I said that we know that the Gospels we have today are the Gospels that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John originally wrote because of the numerous copies of the work. That doesn't make them true, that simply means they're accurate to what was originally written. That is significant when considering the evidence as a whole, even if it does not prove truth in and of itself.

Secondly, I don't see my position as "blind miracle". I've been arguing all along for conjectural rationale. Rational conjecture based on available evidence. You're the one who is following blind skepticism, rejecting any and all information out of hand, with strawmen arguments, not even bothering to consider logic or reason when rejecting what I have put forth. You have rejected concepts put forth as summations as if your twisted rewrites were the whole of the arugment.

Yes, my default position on any issue is to be skeptic about it and then actually analyse the facts. I however find it hard to discuss "logic and reason" while miracles, and testimonies from nearly two millennia ago, are what you put forth.

If it comes down to faith vs incredulity, then yep, a big hurdle appears. The implications of something like the existence of God (and the divinity of Christ) are not minor enough for me to take the word of a book, no matter how widespread or old. I'd rather have a lab report with some proof on it, but belief precedes proof so eh.

I must apologize, my vocabulary failed me. I'm not sure if it was my aphasia, or I just should have used the dictionary more. I meant incredible, as without credit, not incredulous. I find no credit to be found in alternate explanations to explain the history of the Gospels, both the history presented therein, and the Historical accounts surrounding their writing and subsequent impact on the world.

Here you present a third strawman. The evidence in favor of the Bible being true is not simply in it being widespread or old. That's an unwarranted and frankly ridiculous assertion and frankly is contrary to what I've been saying.

As for your preference for lab reports, fine. That's a very very narrow requirement for evidence, far too narrow for my tastes. There is a lot that happens in this world without a lab test to accompany it.

My mastery of english is far from perfect, so the language barrier is understandable. You find no credit to be found in the alternative explanations, I find no credit in calmly accepting the writings of superstitious men from the past as accurate.

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?


I'll go catch some zzz's now, more tomorrow? ^_^

 

[@Li3n]

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

WEll first off there this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#History_of_the_Doctrine_of_Inerrancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility
Plus there's also the fact that we and i assume the catholics too don't rely only on the text of the Bible to interpret it, but on Church Tradition too...

And on the other hand some of the stuff in the book is backed up by other historical sources.

 

[JCM]

Actually, a good guide would be this-

There´s no difference between clergy explaining things and scientists explaining things, but for scientists are basing it off facts, and are giving you ways you can repeat the experiment and see for themselves what they have said.

Why cant gravity be accepted as a law of God´s creation?


Big Bang? The Big bang theory itself was put forth first by a priest, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, as proof that God set things in motion.

Evolution? The Islamic thinker Al-Jahiz was the first to link humans to apes, and yet he stressed on how such a design and planning must be the result of Allah.

Science has yet to exclude god, and if even the Catholic church has said that the Bicle is fallible, and shouldnt be taken literally, there isnt any reason for one to fight against science.

I know that. What I was describing was a personal conflict that I had for a few years which is mostly resolved in my mind now (human evolution). I'm certainly not disputing that science can help affirm faith. I think that most 'God vs. Science' fights are kind of stupid anyway.[/quote]Actually I think most fights come from human stupidity, and the belief that its even possible that the Bible is 100% god's words.

First, its not even God's word, but a compilation of old texts which themselves have been found with many variations, plus a few gospels of a few guys telling the story of the same God.

The Bible itself has been heavily edited a few times by the church, and with minor edits every time its translated, and historically there are many differences between the different Bibles (compare a King James Version and a Authorized Standard Version to the Revised Standard Version and a Young's Literal Translation), and even contradictions in dates and numbers (which were written in script, as the 0, and numerals didnt come yet from the arabs yet, which rules out "hey he added an extra zero").

Using the Bible as evidence against anything that is proven true by scientific method, and can be replicated over and over is simply foolish, especially when the Vatican itself has stopped doing so a few centuries back.

 

[Silver Jelly]

I was reading today something by Lovecraft that was pretty interesting for this religion thing. The character had forgotten how to dream because of him becoming an adult, and he tries to find he richness and beauty he found in his dreams in religion, wich fails him because it's pompous and doesn't recognize how empty it is as a ritual, and philosophy, wich is even worse because it lacks all the beauty in religious rites. He then becomes some kin of empty person who looks and acts normal but feels empty in the puroseless and terrible real world.

In some ways, this makes me think of the message in Philp K. Dick's novel "The divine invasion", with the existance of the real world, wich is what it is, with all what's good and bad, the existance of Belial, wich is a way of looking at this world, a pessimistic, destructive, agressive, evil look. And then there's also the opposite vision of beauty and good, wich allows for a happier world and a purpose... even if the world is still the same world with all 3 visions.


Yes, I base most of my religious beliefs not only in reading the bible and listeing to my favourite priest (who is almost a communist and, therefore, a rebel) but also from science fiction and fantasy.

Let's all read together the ending to Hogfather now for another delicious point about religion and human nature.

 

[figmentPez]

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Well, I don't know a way to snip off some of God's beard and put it in a test tube, if that's what you're looking for.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Well, I don't know a way to snip off some of God's beard and put it in a test tube, if that's what you're looking for.[/QUOTE]

Thus the followers found proof of God, then God ceased to exist.

 

[JCM]

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Well, I don't know a way to snip off some of God's beard and put it in a test tube, if that's what you're looking for.[/quote]

Thus the followers found proof of God, then God ceased to exist.[/QUOTE]You forget that like the date for Christmas and its rituals, Easter and etc, the "bearded god" is just another thing the Christians borrowed from the Pagans (in this case, they copied off Zeus, the gods of gods) and made it their own, so that the pagans would convert easier.

 

[Hailey Knight]

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Well, I don't know a way to snip off some of God's beard and put it in a test tube, if that's what you're looking for.[/quote]

Thus the followers found proof of God, then God ceased to exist.[/QUOTE]You forget that like the date for Christmas and its rituals, Easter and etc, the "bearded god" is just another thing the Christians borrowed from the Pagans (in this case, they copied off Zeus, the gods of gods) and made it their own, so that the pagans would convert easier.[/QUOTE]

Eh, makes it easier for us to do holidays with our Christian families without suspicion.

 

[fade]

You know, I'm not much of a religious person, as I've pointed out, but I never understood why some people think that pointing out that the dates chosen for holidays come from pagan religions somehow invalidates them. I mean, they usually go on to cite the reason, but that kind of invalidates their argument, since that sounds like good conversion/marketing technique more than an invalidation.

Not saying that anyone here is doing that, but I've seen it happen.

 

[JCM]

You know, I'm not much of a religious person, as I've pointed out, but I never understood why some people think that pointing out that the dates chosen for holidays come from pagan religions somehow invalidates them. I mean, they usually go on to cite the reason, but that kind of invalidates their argument, since that sounds like good conversion/marketing technique more than an invalidation.

Not saying that anyone here is doing that, but I've seen it happen.

Well, what Ive heard is basically three reasons-

a) The church did persecute many religions over their rituals/holidays. Thats rather ironic, when it copies the date, AND customs, of other religions.

b) The church today seems inflexible on issues, causing much death in some countries simply because of idiotic things like allowing people to use condoms. Believe me, its not the church's fault, after all, an African/Brazilian who gets AIDS because the church said he shouldn't use it, is most probably having sex outside marriage, which is a no-no as well. But the question stands is why can the church accept Zeus' as their model of "how people should paint god in Vatican churches" and pagan customs and rituals, and not allow something like a condom.

c) The fact that its lying? If I tell you my birthday is in December 25th, that I look like a white-bearded omnipotent roman god and had nails driven through my hands which had skin miraculously strong to hold my weight, I'd be called I liar. Call it in any name, there are hundreds of books, religious people and sermons lying to people, so if one can lie in something as big as the birth of God, what is stopping the church from having created other lies?


Anyway, having converted to many religions and dedicated/wasted a good ten years in catholic school/madrasahs/brahma kumaris centers, it all comes down to marketing.

Even religion lies, if it sells the product, after all, God is omnipotent, but religion is carried by us humans, who sadly, are not perfect.

 

[Hailey Knight]

You know, I'm not much of a religious person, as I've pointed out, but I never understood why some people think that pointing out that the dates chosen for holidays come from pagan religions somehow invalidates them. I mean, they usually go on to cite the reason, but that kind of invalidates their argument, since that sounds like good conversion/marketing technique more than an invalidation.

Not saying that anyone here is doing that, but I've seen it happen.

On one part, it is purely a marketing technique, and an effective one.

But there's a couple problems. One is that when that line between religion blurs, and then the customs of the one fade into the other, and then people forget where those customs came from, they begin to base their faith on those aesthetics rather than on substance. That's largely ignorance though, which in today's world of fast information, people don't really have an excuse for trying to tie painted eggs and bunnies in with Jesus on a religious level.

The other is that once enough people are taken in by the marketing, you don't need the marketing anymore. The others can be subjugated by force, and then that culture from which the traditions came is lost.

 

[Piotyr]

What other evidence of the Bible being true/inerrant/... is there?

Well, I don't know a way to snip off some of God's beard and put it in a test tube, if that's what you're looking for.[/quote]

Thus the followers found proof of God, then God ceased to exist.[/QUOTE]You forget that like the date for Christmas and its rituals, Easter and etc, the "bearded god" is just another thing the Christians borrowed from the Pagans (in this case, they copied off Zeus, the gods of gods) and made it their own, so that the pagans would convert easier.[/QUOTE]

Common theory would place the actual timing of Jesus' birth (based on biblical texts) in the late summer/early fall, since shepherds were out in the fields, and the positions of constellations coupled with the mention of a census taken places it around September 11.

Easter the term (and many of the traditions) were likely borrowed from pagan rituals, but the timing of the date itself is consistent with biblical text in that it coincided with the week of Jewish Passover, with the death and resurrection taking place at the end of Passover week.

 

[@Li3n]

Dude, the first ecumenical council was created because, among other things, Easter was celebrated on different dates depending on regions... and today we don't celebrate it on the same date as the catholics (of course it doesn't have a fixed date for us, that's why the old and new caledarists don't have it at different dates like it happens with christmas).

had nails driven through my hands which had skin miraculously strong to hold my weight, I'd be called I liar.

Weirdly i distinctly remember when i was little seeing somewhere that the nails weren't holding the weight but he was actually tied to the cross with rope around his wrists... so when i saw that argument for the 1st time i was rather unimpressed.

The Bible itself has been heavily edited a few times by the church, and with minor edits every time its translated, and historically there are many differences between the different Bibles (compare a King James Version and a Authorized Standard Version to the Revised Standard Version and a Young's Literal Translation)

Ok, are you talking about differences in the actuall meaning or just them using different words that are near synonims?

 

[Krisken]

Dude, the first ecumenical council was created because, among other things, Easter was celebrated on different dates depending on regions... and today we don't celebrate it on the same date as the catholics (of course it doesn't have a fixed date for us, that's why the old and new caledarists don't have it at different dates like it happens with christmas).

had nails driven through my hands which had skin miraculously strong to hold my weight, I'd be called I liar.

Weirdly i distinctly remember when i was little seeing somewhere that the nails weren't holding the weight but he was actually tied to the cross with rope around his wrists... so when i saw that argument for the 1st time i was rather unimpressed.

The Bible itself has been heavily edited a few times by the church, and with minor edits every time its translated, and historically there are many differences between the different Bibles (compare a King James Version and a Authorized Standard Version to the Revised Standard Version and a Young's Literal Translation)

Ok, are you talking about differences in the actuall meaning or just them using different words that are near synonims?

When you change words, the meaning changes. It's unavoidable. We argue about what our Constitution means and that is only 232 years old.

I have no idea how to respond to what you remember as a little kid, no matter how distinct it was. I distinctly remember seeing myself as I almost drown in a pool when I was 2 years old. Not sure anyone would believe I actually saw myself.

 

[@Li3n]

When you change words, the meaning changes. It's unavoidable. We argue about what our Constitution means and that is only 232 years old.

Dude, they've been arguing about the meaning of the Bible forever, even when it's the same version and the words are the same... that wasn't the point, the point was that the words used don't actually prevent the interpretation from being the same (unless they replace pharisees with liberals, like conservipedia)

I have no idea how to respond to what you remember as a little kid, no matter how distinct it was. I distinctly remember seeing myself as I almost drown in a pool when I was 2 years old. Not sure anyone would believe I actually saw myself.

but unlike your personal experience what i saw could be seen by others, and confirmed or denied...