Faith and Reason.

[Mizango]

Honestly Meian, I don't know. But if they did, how did they find out he existed? Science baby!


I'm sorry I couldn't resist that one

I would have been disappointed had you not taken that shot lol

[Dimmauk]

Since there is more proof that UFOs and ghosts exist, does that mean more people should believe in UFOs and ghosts than a God?

[Meian]

What part of doing good requires the threat of punishment? Why is it OK to cherry pick passages from a book to support your points, then chalk it up to interpretation when someone points out a passage from the same book contradicts your core moral values? Why do you need religion at all if you admit that religion is not required to be moral, if not to provide yourself with an excuse to remain ignorant or force your own standards on others?

Interpretation as we do with the Constitution to this day. There was an older topic about masturbation if it was a sin or not and some interpret some words in the Bible as it is a sin while others say it isn't definite enough.

Two things. One, even if Jesus existed, that proves nothing. People have been walking around calling themselves the son of god and prophets since the dawn of humanity. If there was a Jesus there was nothing exceptional about him, except that his followers succeeded where other cults failed?

Second, I highly doubt there's any such proof that has any archeological veracity whatsoever. There are people who discover a plank of wood on a mountain side and conclude that it must be a piece of the Ark, I have a feeling any such proof would be in the same vein. It just seems so odd to me that there was this charismatic, larger than life figure walking around the ancient world, performing miracles, drawing huge crowds, building a huge following, suffered a spectacular death, and absolutely no one bothered to write about him until hundreds of years later.

Way to sound hostile. All I was stating, for the science people, that he "existed" nowhere did I say that I can prove with a video camera everything he's done to show he was the son of God.

Edit: Had to fix, messed up the quote

[Mizango]

Since there is more proof that UFOs and ghosts exist, does that mean more people should believe in UFOs and ghosts than a God?

Don't forget about my favorite imaginary species, the Tiktaalik! Neil Shubin is a God amongst men.

[Brill Weave]

No because in the end we can have these theological discussions until the end of time. It still comes down to what a person chooses to believe. And just for fine how do you do, if there is a God ain't it a shit that he created us and gave us the free will to not believe in him?

[Stiker]

Not really, there are different Christanity types after all. Catholic believe in faith and good works, while Protestant (I think it was them) believe in "only" in the Bible. Not to mention the concept of "purgatory" is more accepted among Catholics (not quite mentioned in the Bible) than such as Protestant.

Couple things on this.

Firstly, Protestants have several differing beliefs on the Bible. There are some that believe in 100% literal interpretation and others that believe that parts of the Bible are stories and others are historical account. For instance, Adam & Eve is a story passed down in old Jewish tradition, and the Gospels are historical accounts of what people witnessed during the time of Jesus. Other books like Romans for instance are actual letters sent to early churches.

The Protestant Reformation happened in response to corruption in the Church. Objections included the selling of indulgences and positions by the Church. In short, with the Church so far corrupted, reform was needed and then you get varying ideologies that make up the various different sects we have now from there. (Protestant Reformation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia if you are interested)

For instance, some Protestants do believe in 100% literal interpretation of the Bible and others don't. For instance, the Gospels for the most part are considered historical accounts of the life of Jesus and Romans was an actual letter written by Paul to the early church in Rome. Genesis, however, was written by Moses whom wrote of stories that have been passed down by word of mouth in Jewish tradition and are not historical fact.

Other differences include things like Communion/Eucharist. Catholics believe the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. Very few Protestants believe in such a literal interpretation. For instance, Methodists believe Christ meant the body/blood were symbols for us becoming one with Him. And since He taught using many different parables to get his point across, that isn't too far off IMO.

There are several others, but I'm sure you don't want me listing them all out, however, not all Protestants believe it is the Bible, only the Bible and nothing else.

You are also right in saying that dogmas have developed over time that are not specifically in the Bible. Purgatory is one, others I can think of off the top of my head is that Mary was forever a virgin, the Lenten season and giving things up, and meatless Fridays. For instance, the no meat on Friday thing (that the majority of Catholics now seem to only do during Lent) was a political move by the current pope at the time to help fish sales. Since that time, it has remained in the Church as another type of "sacrifice". The tradition is the same on its face, but the reasoning for its continued institution has changed.

So yes, there are dogmas, doctrines, and practices that currently exist in Christianity that do indeed have very little, if any, Biblical basis.

[Neosutra]

Several nice points made, however to Meian:

I was suprised to find there is actually NO evidence that a man named Jesus ever existed. I took it as obvious that he existed (wether the son of god or just another dellusional crazy person like the guy in Waco), however when I started looking at what physical evidence we have for it, there isnt any. Aparently the almighty was illiterate and was unable to write any documents himself. There are no recorded documents of such a person in any of the city records from the time, nor any of the alledged miracals. Also, the books of the new testament werent actually compiled/written till about 300 years later, when Justinius put them all together (and for some reason lost the original copies of everything...).

I dont know wether the man existed or not. It is probably more likely that he was just another crazy middle-eastern religious fanatic that died for upseting the order, and whose stories became more and more magical as they passed through time. However in reality, no person by that name was ever documented to live outside Justinius's writtings, so we may never know.

Do you believe that David Koresh was actually gods son in Waco?

[Meian]

Couple things on this.

Firstly, Protestants have several differing beliefs on the Bible. There are some that believe in 100% literal interpretation and others that believe that parts of the Bible are stories and others are historical account. For instance, Adam & Eve is a story passed down in old Jewish tradition, and the Gospels are historical accounts of what people witnessed during the time of Jesus. Other books like Romans for instance are actual letters sent to early churches.

The Protestant Reformation happened in response to corruption in the Church. Objections included the selling of indulgences and positions by the Church. In short, with the Church so far corrupted, reform was needed and then you get varying ideologies that make up the various different sects we have now from there. (Protestant Reformation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia if you are interested)

For instance, some Protestants do believe in 100% literal interpretation of the Bible and others don't. For instance, the Gospels for the most part are first hand accounts of the life of Jesus and Romans was an actual letter written by Paul to the early church in Rome. Genesis, however, was written by Moses whom wrote of stories that have been passed down by word of mouth in Jewish tradition and are not historical fact.

Other differences include things like Communion/Eucharist. Catholics believe the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. Very few Protestants believe in such a literal interpretation. For instance, Methodists believe Christ meant the body/blood were symbols for us becoming one with Him. And since He taught using many different parables to get his point across, that isn't too far off IMO.

There are several others, but I'm sure you don't want me listing them all out, however, not all Protestants believe it is the Bible, only the Bible and nothing else.

You are also right in saying that dogmas have developed over time that are not specifically in the Bible. Purgatory is one, others I can think of off the top of my head is that Mary was forever a virgin, the Lenten season and giving things up, and meatless Fridays. For instance, the no meat on Friday thing (that the majority of Catholics now seem to only do during Lent) was a political move by the current pope at the time to help fish sales. Since that time, it has remained in the Church as another type of "sacrifice". The tradition is the same on its face, but the reasoning for its continued institution has changed.

So yes, there are dogmas, doctrines, and practices that currently exist in Christianity that do indeed have very little, if any, Biblical basis.

Thanks for the clarifications and info, my knowledge of Protestant is only so much and based off my friend who is a bit of an extremist XD Most of my reading tended to compare Catholic and Protestant on some issues and they often brought up the 100% Bible belief, my fault with that.

Man, I am so bored waiting to get out of here but four hours to go... at least the topic is more interesting unlike yesterday. The FML site is making time pass as well

[Mizango]

I like Strikers post, I can actually say I learned something today. @@ Nice one man and very well said, you gave me something to read up on today seeing as you totally made me curious about the Communion/Eucharist and protestant thing.


Cowboys still suck though.

[kuronosan]

You are contradicting yourself with this statement. Either you need proof or you don't.

I think you are arguing the same position that I take, which is that the unknown is not unknowable. However, your hard-line religious folks argue quite the opposite, that a vengeful yet loving being who looks like us but all-powerful sent his only son, who is actually himself, down to earth to die and rise again as a zombie jewish carpenter to save the world from it's own sin, which is defined as anything that God might disapprove of. Not to mention the whole concept of original sin... it's just bunk man.

I will totally get on board with the idea that there might be forces at work that as of right now we can't identify or observe or understand, but what I will NOT concede is that there is some magic father figure up in the sky who shat us all out because he was lonely or just wanted an ant farm for kicks, and that he is removed from our understanding not by distance or time, but by his very nature. That's just a cop out to avoid admitting they might be wrong.

That is all I am saying.

Devil put turtle and dinosaurs, etc etc

I hate it when people argue that sort of point. If it creates doubt then it was created by the devil. That's a load of crap. I wasn't aware the devil was capable of creating anything. I thought only God could create.

That's why hardline relgious folk annoy me. They add such a literal meaning to everything that it becomes impossible to seek rational thought.

Also, I can't stand it when Christians come up to me and tell me that Harry Potter or Golden Compass are evil because they talk about witches. They're fucking stories, people. Christ sakes.

And I'm saying that that's not rational. You're saying that because you don't know the answer now, that something completely outside the realm of the natural is responsible. But if you do come to understand it, then your suddenly God isn't responsible? You're making God into a placeholder for your own ignorance or misunderstanding.

I'm saying that it is currently unknown, but not unknowable. I'm also not saying that something outside of the natural realm is responsible; I'm saying that something outside of the realm of our understanding is. I'm also saying that until that something is discovered or understood, that yes, God is a placeholder for it. It's not ignorance.

Read what you said for a moment. Darwin set out to prove God's existence because he was devoutly religious. He came to understand that evolution was the mechanism behind life on Earth. Suddenly, spontaneous germination and God's divine creation weren't responsible, yes?

You're writing circles. You're telling me to change my belief because it's ignorant and stupid and yet you have no more proof than I that I am incorrect other than scientific evidence that religion itself is farcicle.

You have, however, no scientific evidence that someone or something wasn't responsible for the creation of basic life on Earth or the universe. Therefore, you cannot call me ignorant for believing that someone or something was responsible.

The fact that I believe such would represent it best as a theory. Theories must be proven somehow. Until they are proven as fact or proven to be false, they will always continue to exist.

Jesus was a real man. I don't think he fed people by cloning fish instantly or turning water into wine in 3 seconds flat. I don't think he rose from the dead and all the other jazz. I don't believe in Noah's ark or that Adam and Eve had two sons and somehow all of humankind came from those two sons (one of which was murdered by the other).

I simply believe that some higher power must have created or catalyzed basic life. I have no scientific evidence to back this up because instruments and knowledge do not exist that can assist me in proving this one way or the other. There's only one thing that exists and it is called faith. Just because it's a physiological process that makes me feel this way does not make it any less valid.

[Stiker]

Cowboys still suck though.

And Jesus still loves you.


Sorry, had too...

[Mizango]

Do you believe that David Koresh was actually gods son in Waco?

I'd like to add to this if I may, if you don't believe he was the messiah why not? He gave only his word, much like his predecessor. Can forget about Jim Jones and people in Europe may remember John Nichols Thom as well. All we're self professed sons of God.

Outside of the bible there is also no evidence or documentation that the Exodus ever occurred. Nothing in Egyptian history or writings or anywhere else in that entire region.

Just sayin'.

And Jesus still loves you.


Sorry, had too...

lol You just keep making my day <3

[Dimmauk]

I remember when I was in Middle School we had a game day. About 6 of us, decided to go into the closet with a Ouija board. We asked some questions and it was cool. Then this girl said lets summon Jesus. So that girl and me held the planchette, and she started asking to see Jesus. It was really dark in there, and we could barely see each other. Suddenly we all see this figure that looked like the impression of Jesus from the Shroud of Turin. He was the same color as my t-shirt(aquamarine). Fucking scared the shit out of us! We all ran out screaming we saw Jesus. Then I remembered we had recently seen a video about the Shroud. Maybe we did see Jesus.
I've also seen UFOs and my old house was Haunted by a little girl that had drown there.

My scientific mind makes me skeptical of some things religious, but deep down inside I wanna believe in something.

[Neosutra]

I simply believe that some higher power must have created or catalyzed basic life. I have no scientific evidence to back this up because instruments and knowledge do not exist that can assist me in proving this one way or the other. There's only one thing that exists and it is called faith. Just because it's a physiological process that makes me feel this way does not make it any less valid.

Actually it does make it less valid.

If one person provides a theory that base chemicals form into amino acids, then amino acids into proteins, then proteins into complex life, and demonstrates this through peer reviewed experiment, then we can say this theory is more valid than someone who states that magical forces made proteins form.

But Im glad you at least realize god is just a placeholder for the things you dont understand. At least you then realize that your god gets smaller every day that you expand your knowledge of the universe.

You stated earlier that you believe "god" directs your life, your nueral paths, your destiny. Do you think that there is a physical force that physically stimulates your nuerons? Why this is this force un-detectable. If a force interacts with our reality in any way, it is measurable.

Im still a bit vague however on where exactly you are placing this god in the life creation process? Do you attribute solar system formation to magic beings? Or perhaps you attribute entropic chemical states and compounds to magic beings? Which specific scientific premise that we dont understand are you attributing to magic?

[Mizango]

My scientific mind makes me skeptical of some things religious, but deep down inside I wanna believe in something.

Everyone wants an answer for the unknown, I just tend to you know, like to have proof before I commit. Hand me down tales of despair and fiery domiciles for me beating off to porn hasn't ever appealed to me.

I don't like the whole idea of changing the rules as you play. I mean the biblical definition of Sodomy originally was for having sex in any other position other than standard boring ass missionary position, giving or receiving oral stimulation, masturbation as well as homosexuality. All of which resulted in being castrated or burned alive at the stake. This isn't a condemnation on any particular religion, I am merely pointing out how rules are changed on the fly whenever they feel like they don't fit into the current times, all while working under the guise of being a universal set of truths so or laws is flawed and should be questioned. The problem is no one ever will, lest he be labeled a heretic or a *GASP atheist.

That is one of my main problems with how this thing is presented. If you recall I belive it was 2 years ago when the Pope woke up on an average Wednesday, came out to his window perch and decided that Limbo no longer exists. What? He was not questioned and gave to concrete reason why. They expect you to accept a fact merely because it was told to you. Kind of like girls on the internet, its Tits or GTFO. I am still waiting on my biblical tits per se.

[Melchiah]

Miz you idiot. The snake convinced Eve to eat some apples that God had totally called Kool-aid on, and then she realized that the tits had to be covered up.

[Denchi]

I think it's interesting that people think that morality is as simple as "Don't infringe on other people's rights, and just be happy."

First off, what the fuck are rights? And who decided what they are? And why doesn't everyone agree on these? It's really.... REALLY not so simple.

Second, it was touched on, moral relativism, which is scary. Societies are extremely different, and sometimes don't mix with other societies, and there is conflict. Who's right? What's a society anyways? Is it just any legitimate state? Is Palestine a society? Why can't they make their own decisions? Or are they bad. If you're going to say that moral behavior is simply based on societal and customary norms, then you really don't have much ground to disagree with Palestine's actions. If you DO disagree with Palestine's actions, then you're not a relativist, and you're imposing your morals on another people because their killing is bad an unjustified to you. But you're also not them. So where does your moral set come from? It can't be from an agreed upon societal structure, because that's being debated here in America everyday, in court cases, and in everyday life. It can't be that you think people know better and can just live as their society dictates, because you obviously disagree with other people's opinions, and you're the conflict that negates your claim.

It's scary to think where you get your morals, because I have no idea where you guys are coming from.

Who's that guy who wrote the largest book ever on Reason? Oh yeah, Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Pure reason. I'd say he's pretty thorough. He goes out of his way to state that reason cannot prove or deny the existence of a God. But he believes in a God, or supreme being. hmm

Also, it seems absolutely ridiculous to say "I believe in Science." Because it's not a moral claim.... at all. You've told me nothing. I believe in science too, but I also believe in God. Hey look, I didn't contradict myself.

[Dimmauk]

Evil: God isn't interested in technology. He cares nothing for the microchip or the silicon revolution. Look how he spends his time, forty-three species of parrots! Nipples for men!
Robert: Slugs.
Evil: Slugs! HE created slugs! They can't hear. They can't speak. They can't operate machinery. Are we not in the hands of a lunatic?

Evil: If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One!
[zaps one of his minions accidentally, minion screams]
Evil: Sorry.


Love Time Bandits.

[Mizango]

Miz you idiot. The snake convinced Eve to eat some apples that God had totally called Kool-aid on, and then she realized that the tits had to be covered up.

lol

Well played sir.

[Tristam]

Yes, it is fascinating that the possibility everything that has happened, including the conversation we are currently having, is nothing more than random chance. I choose to believe otherwise. It's a choice I make. I've simply been too fortunate to choose to believe that my life is random.

SOMEBODY believed Galileo's crock shit theories in his time.

I'm sorry, but sometimes while you don't have to believe what other people believe you really need to learn to accept the possibility of another person's point of view being accurate (even if it isn't precise).

you're running into two really bad sorts of ideas/arguments here and I think before you go on you need to realize what they are.

1. It's not random chance, life, communication, etc. I know this is a difficult concept but please if you go further in science you absolutely must understand that.

2. Don't use the galileo gambit, it's not enough just to have a "crock shit theory" you must also be RIGHT. There are plenty of crock shit theories that didn't pan out, and were discarded. If you use the galileo gambit in an argument about religion, the correct response is "So why hasn't religion been discarded yet?".

Keep in mind I'm not saying your cosmology is irrelevant, but you're using arguments that have been well discussed and tossed out. I think what your long posts boil down to is argument from personal incredulity, and I think you should stop there.