You cannot use the bible to prove the bible. Can you? [Archive]

LinkTheGameFreak

12-15-2007, 6:15 PM

I know I've caused quite a bit of stir in the past over religious subjects ("Why Religion?") and I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in that thread for the most part being sane, rational and throwing out great ideas and explanations. It was a fantastic thread, and much fun and insight was shared by all! :)

Here's the thing now - I'm at the gf's house and I'm hanging out with her and her sister (who goes to a small private Christian school) and glancing around her room I see a book titled "It All Begins With Genesis" and she tells me that that is her science textbook. So I pick it up and skim a few pages to see what it is that they are teaching her and I'm utterly shocked that this is what passes for scientific explanation. I mean, ok, in the "Why Religion?" thread I expressed concern of this sort of thing, but I'd never had to read a textbook until today.

The reason for the title of the thread is the part of the book that intrigues me the most:

"Can you trust what you read in the Bible? What does the Bible say about itself?" (followed by a series of scriptures that "prove" the bible is true)

Scientific reasoning does not include using using what you are trying to prove is true to prove it's true - it's not logically possible.

I was going to post a link from amazon to the book she's using, but oddly they don't carry it, so I found it online elsewhere at (you guessed it!) AnswersInGenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0701curriculum.asp) - Please take a look at the page and download the sample chapter (which I believe has the part I'm referring to in it)

I don't know if I'll have much more to bring to this discussion outside of starting this topic, but I'll try to keep abreast of the posts and reply when I'm able to - especially after I take a better look at the book and ask her some more questions about what they are teaching her.

Lastly, she's a high school freshman and this is the book they are using - just a side note commentary, since the reviews I saw on the site said that 6th graders were using it as well.

edit: here's a link to the first chapter of the book in PDF from their site >> http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/samples/Sample_lesson_1.pdf

Haladras

12-15-2007, 6:35 PM

You can't use the bible to prove the bible, but there has been evidence to suggest certain dates and places. For example, we know that Jesus lived. The question, however, is the significance of him as we know him.

You can't technically prove that anything in history happened "scientifically", so get that out of your head. History is based on legal testimony given by various and trusted witnesses. The events in the Bible (like Herod and the various Roman involvements) have been proven to have actually happened, but whether Jesus was or was not the Son of God or otehrwise is completely controversial. Basically-it's a matter of faith. You don't have to accept the way of thinking to know that he lived, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything spiritually to say that he did live.

Toucan

12-15-2007, 7:10 PM

we know that Jesus lived.
Really? When did that happen?

And history is much more than a he said she said affair. Archeology is the main modern source of what we consider our history. If no proof can be provided archaeologically then it is not considered fact.

Oblongato

12-15-2007, 8:19 PM

These materials are designed as aids to support a rationally corrupt but religiously sound view or the world. As with all religion, it is necessary to start with what you "know" to be "true" and then find "evidence" to support it. The purpose of such books is to aid readers in circumventing the doubts and questions that reason may place in their way.

I suspect that anyone who finds nothing strange about the "logic" in that first chapter is probably already lost and will never appreciate the concept of reason / logic. That such materials are allowed to be used by home schoolers and private schools is a shocking condemnation of the very concept of private or home schooling. If this is really what is going on there, such alternative schooling should be forbidden.

LinkTheGameFreak

12-15-2007, 9:05 PM

I think the PDF is a fairly good example of the kind of "proof" they use to rationalize something that can't otherwise be proven - I kinda regret that I don't have pictures of her own workbook since that provided the most insight for me as to what the acceptable answers are to the questions. It honestly seemed rather a shallow assessment of quite a difficult question(s).

Really? When did that happen?

And history is much more than a he said she said affair. Archeology is the main modern source of what we consider our history. If no proof can be provided archaeologically then it is not considered fact.

Technically I'd consider that true except in cases where history overlaps in different cultures (ie, record of the same event recorded by multiple cultures is often considered verifiable, even if the evidence has been lost to time at the time - usually the most basic of "facts" are taken and not the "details" unless a timeline construction is being used to try and figure out the events - causality and such. In those cases details are invaluable to researchers and can oftne lead to new discoveries)

These materials are designed as aids to support a rationally corrupt but religiously sound view or the world. As with all religion, it is necessary to start with what you "know" to be "true" and then find "evidence" to support it. The purpose of such books is to aid readers in circumventing the doubts and questions that reason may place in their way.

I suspect that anyone who finds nothing strange about the "logic" in that first chapter is probably already lost and will never appreciate the concept of reason / logic. That such materials are allowed to be used by home schoolers and private schools is a shocking condemnation of the very concept of private or home schooling. If this is really what is going on there, such alternative schooling should be forbidden.

There are always converts - I'm sad to say it but my girlfriend is a convert from the cult of christianity's "logic and scientific principles" since going to college. I'm only sad to say it because it's difficult to watch someone realize that alot of what they've been taught is complete bullshit. I had a similar experience about 2.5 years ago the summer before I came to college and pretty much started abandoning my faith there.

I don't think that alternative schooling should be forbidden, but less than qualified people should not be teaching it. Unless your parents have a degree in the subject matter (and that includes theology since it is an important subject, despite the veracity of it) then they should not be allowed to teach it. Most churches don't even hire ministers unless they went to Bible university or have a degree in theology. Simply being a believer doesn't qualify you to preach from the pulpit in their eyes. On the same side of the coin, simply having taken chemistry in high school 20 years ago doesn't mean you can teach your children science from your home using a book and a set of instructional tapes (which I've found a lot of these small christian schools and home schooling parents do)

GenocideAlive

12-15-2007, 9:11 PM

The stupid part is how much effort they put into snowing people. They developed a rational, cohesive "open-minded" series of concepts and then ended it with a colossal crater of logic. "Who made the cake?" Followed by a series of "options" about who you would ask about who made it--a teacher, a friend, or someone who saw who made the cake being made. Then the in the final page, they dub "the Creator" as an "eyewitness to the cake being made".

Give me a fucking break, God witnessed himself making the cake? What kind of logical train wreck...fuck it, never mind.

Ling666

12-15-2007, 11:23 PM

That doesn't look like a very good science book. As far as I could tell, there was no biology, physics, or any other science I recognized. What is it for? The ability to reasoning?

As for proving the Bible, I think that can only be done by looking at writings done by people during that time, such as Suetonius, Lucian of Samosata, Cornelius Tacitus, and other people and historians who might have written then. If they said the events happened, then they did. If not, then there's no proof that way.

Just because people believe something now, doesn't mean it actually happened. If there is no proof, they are probably wrong. Thus, I don't see why people give their opinion on whether or not the Bible is true. If they think they are right, they should find proof to back up their statements, or just be quieter.

LinkTheGameFreak

12-16-2007, 1:24 AM

I asked the sister a bit ago and she said that she feels that the class is just being used as another excuse to study bible, and the instructor even said as much.

GA brings up a good point in confusing people to the point of getting them to forget logic - it really kinda is a "clusterfuck" once you think about it not from the point of a student in the class (unless you're already predisposed to "thinking" rather than "accepting")

I don't know if the chapter is on the site, but there was another section I want to bring up later - I'll see if I can borrow her book and scan a few pages.

Sorry for the short response.

femoimal

12-16-2007, 5:08 AM

"the word evolved by chance" !!!!

"man came up from the slime, why bother" !!!

"is there an eye-witness" !!

man, this is organized intellectual slaughter !
....centuries of empiricism, of logic, of causality and independent thought put on an altar and dismembered. We went through early historical empires crashing down, the dark ages, the inquisition, the renaissance, the industrialization and the rebirth of philosophy, the advent of the scientific thought...for what ?

for that ?

Sometimes ignorance is an excuse for saying bull, that here ignorance is a goal in itself. Its like opening the guts of logic and spilling the contents in the gutter. Deposit your brains here, obey the authority. You do not know, do not have an eye-witness (of creation, what, 6000 years ago?), believe in the dogma.
To the literate, this "chance" thing about evolution is as old as it is wrong. I cannot believe people still use the watchmaker argument. They still believe that it is chance that drives evolution, and not random mutations sanctionned by death !
The slime is ludicrous. The christian God emerged from what ? the void ? Oh i would not like to believe in that, the void is ugly, the void is bad, i'd better emerge from a flower. Or perhaps the creator is a metaphorical hermaphrodite that copulated with himself and game birth to himself ? IT is the same moronesque reasoning that push people to say "oh common, big bang is just a theory, because hey, what was there before?". (of course its a theory, get an eye-witness over there, pronto!). If you use that "before" for the god, you hit a brick wall.

This is yet another return of the debraining campaign fought so successfully during the last centuries amongst human beings. It is more organized yet still much less fierce than before (they cannot gut you for thinking free, at least yet).It even disguises itself as its enemy (reason, science) to get a tenuous foothold.
I say let that kind of faith separate the morons from the rest, and let them dwell in a middle-age of their own. Let them lobotomize their own children. They can worship their scriptures all they want, the very basis for their indoctrination immunes them to whatever could give them logic and reason back. They can learn the bible by heart all they want, they can persecute free thought and cling to old patriarchal intolerant societies all they want.

the others will choose to advance.

Toucan

12-16-2007, 6:12 AM

SuiCidAl-KiSmEt

12-16-2007, 10:52 AM

SgtHK, he's complexly saying that the three first sentences that he quoted was somehow wrongly stated and offending. Seems like it...

Although, I agree about teaching more evidential information but generally, a lot of books are bias, ideas are promoted to what they are related to. Who would ever thought a book related about a religion would pursue religion, it's might be easy to have happen. Obviously.

Even the book of History is corrupted. If there was a real eye-witness, would it matter? Back in the day, the victor mostly writes history, would he be biased? Just imagine this happening after a war. No one would want or willingly correct him, because the other side of the story is lost with the defeated.

For the Bible, knowing what some of it might be by what I said above, my focus is mostly elsewhere. I read is that the Romans were Polytheism and somehow after executing Christians, surprisingly mostly the whole empire was converted. And some 10 commandments was said to be carved in some stone. It doesn't matter where it's recorded or believed to be evident, our lineage contains observers who were there. For what ever reason why all those might have happened...

LinkTheGameFreak

12-16-2007, 2:25 PM

After reading more about the actual so called "science book" I'm just astonished, such a book would not even be legal to use in a school down here.
An Islamic school was recently closed on the basis that they refused to teach the required Australian school curriculum. Every school, private and public must meet or exceed the requirements of the curriculum.

Are there no such laws in the US to protect US children from this lack of proper education?

As far as I understand about the school she attends, it's not state accredited, because they refuse to teach the state mandated curriculum. Actually I think we'd beat that subject to death talking about it with the family. The consensus (as far as I know) is that it's the only christian school around and they want their chldren given a good faith-based education.

I'm not sure about US laws on the subject of "lack of proper education", but that would just bring up another argument of who would decide what is and isn't proper education and why (if there isn't already law in place).

SgtHK, he's complexly saying that the three first sentences that he quoted was somehow wrongly stated and offending. Seems like it...

Although, I agree about teaching more evidential information but generally, a lot of books are bias, ideas are promoted to what they are related to. Who would ever thought a book related about a religion would pursue religion, it's might be easy to have happen. Obviously.

Even the book of History is corrupted. If there was a real eye-witness, would it matter? Back in the day, the victor mostly writes history, would he be biased? Just imagine this happening after a war. No one would want or willingly correct him, because the other side of the story is lost with the defeated.

For the Bible, knowing what some of it might be by what I said above, my focus is mostly elsewhere. I read is that the Romans were Polytheism and somehow after executing Christians, surprisingly mostly the whole empire was converted. And some 10 commandments was said to be carved in some stone. It doesn't matter where it's recorded or believed to be evident, our lineage contains observers who were there. For what ever reason why all those might have happened...

IMO, it goes without saying that the victor writes history, and the past 500 years it looked like science was finally winning an uphill battle against ignorant people who refused to believe that things didn't happen because of "magic" and "divine intervention" but rather by "scientific principles" that can be proven to happen through examination of the events instead of taking them at face value.

There is a chapter in the book about "thinking critically" and the subject was predisposition and the example they used was rather insulting. Whoever wrote the book wrote something to the effect of "let's take off our god glasses and pretend we don't believe in Jesus and we CERTAINLY don't believe in miracles!" and the students are instructed to act out a truncated version of the story of Jesus turning water into wine. The conclusion drawn is that the party guests thought the wine had been made weeks ago, but in FACT Jesus made it in mere seconds. Conclusion: Just because things happen normally, doesn't mean they happen that way all the time. Did the guests even consider that the wine was made supernaturally rather than naturalistically? The guests are wrong because they didn't consider the variable of magic! (these are my words, not the book's words)

Haladras

12-16-2007, 4:47 PM

I agree that this has been pushed too far, but stating that Jesus lived and what he did are two completely different things. Technically, you can't even prove that Napoleon lived if you don't take the word of reliable witnesses. Without this level of trust you can just dance around whatever happened until the sun turns into a chunk of coal. But how those witnesses interpreted events is the question.
And history is not always (and I say always, because it usually is) written by the winners. The sacking of Rome, for instance.

It's been taken too far. The U.S. is one of the most socially backward countries because it's still stuck in a system governed by religious fanaticism. Europe and the other countries have already been through that garbage, and so they aren't having the idiotic problems that the United States is experiencing with Romney and other radicals.

End result: the system needs a major overhaul.

femoimal

12-16-2007, 5:03 PM

..the system will not overhaul. It will split. You know, like in early civilizations where written language was used by a minority? Well, replace writing by reason and freedom, and you got your future.
your task will be to take care of you and your children and be on the good side when it splits.

Technology, science are getting too demanding for the common human. Few are willing to invest time to just get the tools to understand it, not by real stupidity, but sheer lazyness. And as science progresses (look at cosmology), the thing is getting worse. The rate at which this 'complexification' can be absorbed cannot eternally rise. We might reach a point where science will become transparent to its users ("magic") and will be accepted by all, and understood by a minority.

Bible people will find the workings of a quantum teleporting device is a gift from the Eternal, and you will have read an article in Scientific American describing the workings of the Einstein-Hawking entwinning of particles. I'd prefer to be the one who understands, personaly.

Modred

12-16-2007, 5:26 PM

Bible people will find the workings of a quantum teleporting device is a gift from the Eternal, and you will have read an article in Scientific American describing the workings of the Einstein-Hawking entwinning of particles.

Ah yes, the good old "Christians are idiots who cannot see the world around them" argument.

Anyway, a better learning exercise would be to examine the assumptions that this text makes and discuss how those assumptions might lead to loaded questions and logical jumps. Considering the emphasis the sample text places on the word "worldview," it doesn't seem to really care much about analyzing how or why a person ascribes to a certain view, but just presents a series of assumptions and logically flawed analogies to Biblical events (at least, the cake analogy suffers some serious flaws).

I find this text unfit for use in general education. (Surprise, surprise)

Prozerran

12-17-2007, 1:13 AM

You cannot use the bible to prove the bible. Can you?

By virtue of any religious belief, in order to prove the existence of the religion, it must be proven through its tenets. There is no way to validate the tenets set forth in the bible without referencing the very tenets contained in the bible. In regards to education, we're in a bit of a quagmire here (thanks Bush!).

"The word "education" derives from the Latin educare, meaning 'to nourish' or 'to raise' which is also related to educere meaning 'to lead out.'"

"Education encompasses teaching and learning specific skills, and also something less tangible but more profound: the imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed wisdom."

-Wikipedia

Nothing in Education requires that one be educated by one universal point of view. In our culture, it is common to seek a broad array of educations, from technical skills to licensing requirements for work-related activity. In effect, you shouldn't be expected to learn everything about the world from one source. It is your responsibility as an individual to seek more knowledge, not the educator's. So, while your concern is notably worthwhile, your point that this is bad is only bad if your friend is led to believe she does not need more education. If she fails to take it upon herself to become more educated, then it is she who bears the burden of being "irrational."

Hope this helps answer your concerns about this. I know it seems a little bit extreme and almost frightening to think that this constitutes "education" in our society, but it does, and you have to take the good with the bad (more to the point, the agreeable with the disagreeable) if you want to live in a free society.

GenocideAlive

12-17-2007, 12:24 PM

Modred

12-17-2007, 1:56 PM

However, it's a complicated thing when applied to Christians. They tend to get extremely offended when you apply "ignorant" labels to them. It isn't terribly difficult to understand why.

Does anyone like being told that they are ignorant? I hardly think it's specific to Christians.

modred, it is more subtle than that. It is refusing to know, refusing to learn.
Refusing evolution means refusing atomic physics, chemistry, archeology, history and logic. Thats a good starters for (p)reaching idiocy, i presume.

So if a person denies evolution, they place no value in any scientific knowledge? Your example was that "Bible people" would take some man-made technological advancement and call it magic from heaven. If someone does that, then yes, feel free to call them an idiot. But I hardly find it appropriate to say that "Christians" in general are like that.

If "all Christians are idiots," then what's wrong with "all Muslims are terrorists"? I could pull small pieces of the Koran out of context and cite various terrorist attacks as evidence, but these isolated examples alone don't prove anything about Muslims in general.

Or I could just make broad generalizations about Islam and how it "leads to terrorism," using hypothetical examples and stereotyping to prove my point.

Somehow, I don't think that would be acceptable in this forum.

LinkTheGameFreak

12-17-2007, 2:03 PM

Femoimal, it is dubbed "Willful Ignorance" and it is listed extensively under logical fallacies. However, it's a complicated thing when applied to Christians. They tend to get extremely offended when you apply "ignorant" labels to them. It isn't terribly difficult to understand why. Some Christians are proud of the term, some deny it, and still yet others will argue some degrees of both. You get nowhere pointing out a Christian's Willful Ignorance, except to invoke their substantial preprogrammed defenses.
My girlfriend's grandmother and me often talk at length about political and sociological subjects - The thing I find interesting about her is she is extremely learned, but sometimes stuck at faulty logic about certain subjects, and I'll give you an example:

The other day we were talking about environmental issues and why she doesn't like Al Gore (who I don't LOVE but find him to be doing good, so I respect him and his willingness to put himself out there regarding the environment) and our conversation went something like this (regarding pretty much what she doesn't like about him altogether):

Me: So why don't you like Al Gore?
Her: He's hardly a man - did you know he hired a woman to teach him how to be more assertive?
Me: I didn't, but does it matter if a woman is teaching him how to be more like a man, especially if he has good ideas that no one would listen to otherwise?
Her: I guess not really, but he spends too much time worrying about the environment
Me: I think he's doing a great job creating awareness
Her: Yeah, as he crisscrosses the globe in his jet
Me: I think most people are misinformed about that - even though he uses more energy than most people (his house alone uses 5x more than the average home if I'm not mistaken) he uses mostly all renewable energy sources
Her: WELL I think it's baloney that he's doing all that and telling me that I can't use anything
Me: It's not that he says not to use fossil fuels anymore, it's supplementing that use with clean energy, to slowly make up and phase it out, rather than only using coal, oil and the like
Her: it doesn't really matter anyways since Jesus is coming back soon

The last line isn't exactly what she said, but for this example it's close enough to illustrate a point, and that point is that when it comes to some issues (environmental, scientific) some Christians remain willfully ignorant because "we don't have long on this earth anyways, so why should we bother trying to (conserve resources, keep it clean, etc)?" And that's one thing I've noticed, because it's selfish as hell. Willful ignorance for the sake of selfishness.

Anoiktos

12-17-2007, 3:46 PM

There is a problem with this question.

You're implying a definition of logical proof, whereas bible-thumpers will tend to define the bible as proof. Essentially, if you're trying to disprove the ability to use the bible as logical proof of itself, you're bound to succeed because any attempt to do so can be dismissed as circular reasoning.

If, however, you're attempting to use the bible as proof of itself through faith, then of course the bible is proof of itself - it's the bible.

Thus both sides can state that they are correct without fear of contradiction because they can both begin from different premises. So any discussion will take place on two coterminous but unrelated levels, making resolution impossible.

femoimal

12-17-2007, 4:47 PM

perhaps i mis-expressed myself :

what i said in my previous posts is about orthodox christians (not the post-byzantine ones) i.e. those who take the scripture literally, or do not consider the testaments as parables and metaphors.

i have a question about this schoolbook. Okay, you are young, you get taught the contents of the book, with a bit more pressure than the normal educational books (you have to swallow a whole para-epistemological method, and a new paradigm, it is not like learning quantum physics but well)... okay, cool. What happens then, when you grow up ?

do you outgrow it ? Is it terminal ? Can you hack back and reconquer logic ? How do you rehab from such philosophy ?

Here in Greece, where i live for the last 5 years, the mix is very odd. First of all, the Church is everywhere. It is not yet separated from the state. Means that in my taxes, i pay the priests and maintain the churches etc... The church mingles in everything, everytime there is an opening, anything social, you can always spot the bearded man in black whose hands are kissed by politicians and other citizen. The teaching of the bible is compulsory in school, so is the morning prayer (or at least 'til of late). A poll stated that the young trust more the chruch than any other institution.
Yet, they fuck they eyes out every day, behave like crooks and bash the catholics and muslims like the armageddon's coming tomorrow.
In short, although they are given quite religious upbringing (in theory), and religion itself has permeated every inch of their life (they sign themselves very commonly when they cross a church), they do not live by the book at all. (if you want my opinion, they'll all rot in hell hehehe)

Do those who get the education Gamefreak talks about, live by the book ?

LinkTheGameFreak

12-17-2007, 10:12 PM

Toucan

12-18-2007, 2:17 AM

Technically I'd consider that true except in cases where history overlaps in different cultures (ie, record of the same event recorded by multiple cultures is often considered verifiable, even if the evidence has been lost to time at the time - usually the most basic of "facts" are taken and not the "details" unless a timeline construction is being used to try and figure out the events - causality and such. In those cases details are invaluable to researchers and can oftne lead to new discoveries)

Records kept by cultures are of great archaeological significance, but there not always taken as law.
If they where the legend of Atlantis would be considered more than a legend, but nothing of Atlantis can be accounted for, so it remains just a legend.
Name one event in history that is regarded as historic fact with out any evidence to back it up.
As far as I understand about the school she attends, it's not state accredited, because they refuse to teach the state mandated curriculum.
Sounds to me like the state already has a well debated and thought out mandated curriculum put in place by the democratically elected state government. A school that refuses to follow it should be closed.

Anoiktos

12-18-2007, 7:20 PM

I guess the thread title is a bit of a misnomer - the real question is in the original post, sorry about that
The point stands, I believe; you cannot prove something with its own contents unless those contents demonstrate proof (like, say, the explorabook inviting its users to use the contents of the book to prove to themselves that the science is real). 'proving' that the bibles' words are true by referencing scriptures in them without outside context is useless. Again, though, this is from a logical perspective. Religion isn't so hot on logic as a rule, because it tends to impede faith. (which is belief regardless of evidence or context)

Veeger

12-19-2007, 5:16 PM

No, Anoiktos. Faith is not belief despite evidence, faith is belief when evidence is not possible. Ie: we have faith that the Earth was formed and populated with animals and the first human couple in six days, while many scientists have faith that the Earth formed and populated over a period of many millions of years.

Having faith in something is not a bad thing. And I don't bring up evolution to spark a different debate -- I only bring it up as an example of believing in something with no one to account for it.

As for the Bible proving itself, I agree with the assertion that it cannot. I don't believe in the Bible because of what it says, I believe in the Bible because events in my life have led me to believe that God and Christ are real, and as such I believe in the Bible's tellings of how events unfolded.

The point has been brought up about writings without witnesses. The Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. They related their stories to collegues, who wrote it down for them. I believe John did write his himself while he was in exile (shortly before he wrote Revelation), though I may be mistaken about that. In either case, each Gospel was written at different times and in different places, with only John having read any of the other accounts before writing his.

Is that not enough evidence that multiple witnesses accounted for the same events without corroboration?

As for Genesis being taught by a school, private or not -- I don't know. I fear saying no, as that would violate our right, as Americans, to live freely as we choose and to raise our children as we choose. But that is a book that I think should be reserved for sunday school. Not a bad book, or a book that should not be read, but not in a school setting. Basic (ie: grade school) should be used to learn what any citizen needs to know to properly function in society and nothing more -- from what I have read of that book, it would be an interesting read, but certainly not required for functioning in society.

Genocide, I did enjoy your cake metaphor, lol!

I have an 'odd' view of the Bible. I believe that Genesis is how our world was created and began, I believe in the Gospels, and I believe that Revelation is not far off. The rest of it I take with a grain of salt, which often gets me in hot water with my friends. Here are a few examples.

The only place that we read the phrase that God is omnipotent )ie: knows everything, everywhere) is in psalms . . . a collection of songs. I do believe that God knows everything, but does He ever stop learning? I often wonder if we have surprised Him during our stay here. I also do not believe that He knows what we are going to do before we do, otherwise why should we pray? I believe that God can see what each of our actions will cause down the road, and when we pray He nudges us towards the decision that is best for us -- but we can always ignore His guidance.

I don't blindly believe any of the epistles (books in new testament outside the gospels and acts and revelation). They are no more divinely inspired than books written by Dr. Dobson or Tim LeHaye. Do we ever refer to their works as holy? Of course not -- how much more so are letters written by Paul or Timothy to address idiots who were running the Churches of their time? We have imbeciles running churches now.

Don't misunderstand me, I do still read the epistles and live by what they say -- but you will never see me refer to an epistle when asked for Truth.

As for proving the Bible, many things in Genesis were written long before they were understood. On day 2, God separated the 'waters from the waters' with a firmament, or barrier. How could the early Jews have possible understood what the atmosphere is? Or the fact that there were things outside of our planet, like solar wind and the like, that could harm us?

Later on, in the descendants of Noah, we read about Peleg, in whose days the "Earth was divided". Yes, that phrasing is vague, but there are only two things it could refer too. Either the division of mankind, which occured some years later at Babel, or the physical separation of the continents. Who among you realized that Pangaea was in the Bible?

If you strip away all of the assumptions about what the Bible stands for and just read the book understanding that it was written centuries ago, you might be surprised by what you find in there.

Anoiktos

12-19-2007, 5:38 PM

femoimal

12-19-2007, 6:05 PM

Faith is not belief despite evidence, faith is belief when evidence is not possible. Ie: we have faith that the Earth was formed and populated with animals and the first human couple in six days, while many scientists have faith that the Earth formed and populated over a period of many millions of years.

"many" scientists have "faith" ? "millions of years" ? My fella, there is no faith in science. None, zit, not even a free sample you put as a gift for kids. Faith is the very opposite of the scientific method. Faith relies on a system suspending discovery and logic and replacing it by dogma (accepting anything the authority says), and science is a method of building knowledge by theorization, experimentation and confirmation (or not, in any case knowledge gains from it) of the theory.
I hope you know better the testaments than your science facts. It's billion years. But still, naaaaah you are right, the last millions, nothing much happened: it just witnessed the evolution of the Australopithecus into several sub-groups, one of which, the last 2 billions of years, evolved into you and me. Just before, the branch from the apes had separated and got under sail on its own, and just before, the monkeys. All in all, not that much, you will agree :P

It's as if i stated that:

" Scientific knowledge is not belief based on evidence, it is not belief at all, its the correlation and the convergence of inter-disciplinary research confirming or invalidating theoretical working of the world. i.e: we have a fantastically vast array of different sciences (geology, nuclear physics, history, botanics, biology, ethnology, archeology, chemistry, cosmology, mathematics, linguistics, microbiology) indicating that the world is about 5 billions of years old and supported human organized societies more then 10 thousands of years ago, while you think the wicked Eva took the apple from the Snake and fed it to Abraham"

See ? it would not do it. Not at all :D

faith is like a neutrino, it flies straight through everything, interacts very little with anything, and can cross half the universe without even realising its there. Man i am in a poetic mood tonight.

Anoiktos

12-19-2007, 6:16 PM

I would disagree; science tends to imply several pieces of faith:

1. Cause and effect follow each other (implying that it is possible to explain why something happens, or verify that something 'tends to happen')
2. Scientists in a different specialization from you aren't all in a conspiracy to lie to you about their findings.

Essentially, the first implies the idea that data is collectible and/or relevant, and the second implies that you can trust scientists in different disciplines' findings.

The reason for the first is so that any logical headway can be made at all, the reason for the second is that no one person can understand all of science to the extent that experts in a given field do.

People who are not scientists but follow science tend to have faith that the scientific community is not lying to them about those parts of science they cannot verify themselves.

The difference, then, is that science invites anyone who wishes to question their findings, and grants them the means to do so, wheras religion creates findings that have no means of falsification whatsoever.

femoimal

12-19-2007, 6:23 PM

about the pangea thing: continents cluster together and re-separate roughly every 500 million years. There was not just one super continent, but several. Shall i name a few, i find the names very poetic :
Laurasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurasia) (~ 300 — ~60 million years ago)
Pangaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea) (~300 — ~180 million years ago)
Euramerica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euramerica) (~300 million years ago)
Pannotia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannotia) (~600 — ~540 million years ago)
Rodinia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodinia) (~1.1 Ga — ~750 million years ago)
Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_%28supercontinent%29), also called Nuna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuna_%28supercontinent%29), (~1.8 — 1.5 Ga ago)
Nena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nena_%28supercontinent%29) (~1.8 Ga)
Kenorland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenorland) (~2.7 Ga. Neoarchean sanukitoid cratons and new continental crust formed Kenorland. Protracted tectonic magna plume rifting occurred 2.48 to 2.45 Ga and this contributed to the Paleoproterozoic glacial events in 2.45 to 2.22 Ga. Final breakup occurred ~2.1 Ga.)
Ur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur_%28continent%29) (~3 Ga ago, though probably not a supercontinent; but still however, the earliest known continent. Ur, however, was probably the largest, perhaps even the only continent three billion years ago, so one can argue that Ur was a supercontinent for its time, even if it was smaller than Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) is today). Still, an older rock formation now located in Greenland dates back from Hadean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean) times.... the most funny part is that there will be new supercontinents, the next one's coming, but geologists disagree on its shape or name. Call it pangea ultima or amasia, or Robert if you want :)
Please, do not tell me that Jesus was a geologist, i for myself will not try to convince you that Democritus was a Space Shuttle Flight Instructor.

...as for the barrier and atmosphere thing... My early (pagan) ancestors thought that the sky was made of crystal spheres rotating around the earth. Man, how did they know of the foam universe theory ?

femoimal

12-19-2007, 6:29 PM

I would disagree; science tends to imply several pieces of faith:

1. Cause and effect follow each other (implying that it is possible to explain why something happens, or verify that something 'tends to happen')
2. Scientists in a different specialization from you aren't all in a conspiracy to lie to you about their findings.

errrr you are kind of veering off course, dear hellene.

1. No faith. Just logic. Read Francis Bacon. It is an assumption. It works right, so its a good assumption. Causality is indeed a pillar in science, and much ink is spilled about its violation in the time-arrow problem or quantum world.
2. Aaaaaah well. I see. Hmm wait a minute: I have faith in humanity. Means i foster hopes in it. What you call having faith in you fellow reserchers is called... trust.

Do you come down often in Athens, so we can have a chat about all this ? (tha sou keraso kai mia byritsa!) <--- horrible horrible greek insult

ah, one last thing, i think you mistyped something:
when you type "The difference, then, is that science invites anyone who wishes to question their findings, and grants them the means to do so, wheras religion creates findings that have no means of falsification whatsoever.", i gather you wanted to write "proof" ?

Anoiktos

12-19-2007, 7:32 PM

A note about these points: I am arguing not because I disagree with the conclusions of these points (for I agree!), but because I attempt to be even-handed in my definitions of things, especially of those things that I dislike.

To the first point: The problem with defining cause and effect as a useful function is that you use the terms of cause and effect to define it as 'useful'. I agree that it is necessary, and quite dislike philosophers who naysay axioms, as they are equally necessary, but it is not entirely without its own form of faith.

To the second point: Trust is, as you say, faith in others. Again, it is necessary, and foolish to ignore, but it is nevertheless faith.

To the third point, I did indeed mean falsification. There is no means by which it is possible to disprove religious doctrines, because they absorb those proofs. As such, your statement is equally correct in scientific terms, because a theory must have means of falsification.

An example of a religious idea absorbing a proof might be the afore-mentioned idea of 'fossils'; scientific theory can 'prove', or at least use logic to support the existence of the earth prior to religious doctrines' belief of its creation time. Thus the religious state instead that their god created these fossils on purpose, negating the falsification by belief in a flawless god.

And regrettably, though perhaps my name deceives you, I am no hellene; my home is not even in the EU, nor am I a true student of science or philosophy: merely a godless, lying, deceptive and evil trafficker in languages and stories currently residing in the U.S.

(Ravi d'avoir pu vous parler!) <--- Horrible horrible french insult

Haladras

12-19-2007, 8:32 PM

The real trick in all of this is to make your faith decisions based on evidence you find. There are certain points that can be taken in multiple ways (such as "an eye for an eye" versus "love your neighbor"). There is actually a foundation that uses scientific proof to back up their faith. While this proof is not all-encompassing, it does imply a certain point of view. For example, many believe in the "old universe" point of view: that God created the universe, but did it as part of a masterwork plan that spanned many thousands of years and could have perhaps included evolution (by the way, the Hebrew word for day, yom, can be interpreted several different ways, thus supporting this conclusion).

Saying that faith is based completely on fact is not exactly true, but much of it is pure believe as well. These small, epic interpretations of evidence, if put in a certain way, can all lead up to a conclusion that points the opposite direction. For example, the entire myth that Xmas "crosses out" Christ (actually, the X is the Greek symbol for Christ).

All of reality rests on your interpretation of it.

Sounds to me like the state already has a well debated and thought out mandated curriculum put in place by the democratically elected state government. A school that refuses to follow it should be closed.

That statement hinges entirely on "the sake of the majority." Push away Iraq's alleged involvement in terrorism for a moment and believe, hypothetically, that its slate is just as clean as that of the U.S. (which isn't very, I know, but bear with me). Should the U.S. win the war simply because it has a bigger continent and a larger population?

Toucan

12-20-2007, 1:53 AM

That statement hinges entirely on "the sake of the majority." Push away Iraq's alleged involvement in terrorism for a moment and believe, hypothetically, that its slate is just as clean as that of the U.S. (which isn't very, I know, but bear with me). Should the U.S. win the war simply because it has a bigger continent and a larger population?
I don't really understand what it is your trying to say here. War's are not decided democratically, never have been, never will be.
If a political body wins the election then that political body quite legally assumes control of the government and quite legally start putting there policies in place. It is after all what they where voted in to do!
I don't see how any comparison can be made in any way (apart from the obvious change of power) between democracy and conquest.

FrankZ

12-20-2007, 5:51 AM

IMHO, it is only you who can prove the bible. You see, everything works behind your head, if you believe in God and you believe that He did live, then you will live for it. IMO, however, Jesus did live, and the bible is real history. Now, I'm not gonna write my homily of my own here, so hence, it was only me.

Veeger

12-20-2007, 10:52 AM

I have said this before, but some of the names here are new to me, so I will repeat myself. The word 'yom' can be defined several ways, but the Bible does not just say 'it was a day'. It clearly states there was day, and then night, equaling a day.

Unless you want to believe the Earth rotated once every several thousand days back 'in the day', you can't refute the Bible states 24 hour days.

Now, do I believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? No, not really. Genesis says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, but it then says that the Earth was without form and that God hovered over the surface of the waters. How long did He hover? Was there a period of time between the Creation of the Earth and the FORMING of the Earth? I believe there may have been, and because God is eternal, and therefore time is not something He thinks about or worries about, it is concievable to believe that the Earth was unformed for a while before it was formed and filled with life.

Also remember that in the order of creation, God created land animals before sea animals, which is opposite from the Theory of Evolution. So, even if you want to think that the days were metaphorical, it still does not coincide with Evolution.

Now, I want to address something. We are now facing a new form of discrimination, and while it has always been on this forum in subtle ways I have never experienced it to this level.

I am NOT some country bumpkin who cannot perform basic algebra. Or understand how radio waves function. TV is not 'magic'. You, all of you, assume the instant that I profess my beliefs that I am an idiot.

I am also not unswavering in what I say. I have an open mind, and am willing to reconsider my stance when faced with good evidence. Good evidence.

The fossil record is NOT good evidence. It has holes, the fossils jump around the timelines, we discover creatures every day that we thought were extinct only to feel stupid when we suddenly find some alive and quite well. Our assumptions based upon the record are not concrete in any way, and so to use it as proof of anything is fanciful.

Surely you have heard of the experiment where they petrified wood in a matter of years, then the carbon test claimed it was hundreds of years old when the scientists doing the carbon test are the same ones who selected the tree for the experiment!

Carbon dating is untrustworthy. The fossil record is untrustworthy. Everything you have stated as 'proof' of Evolution requires faith, on your part, that the dates are correct. Like it or not, argue the point or not, you were not there when the creatures in the fossil record died, and know no one who did either, so you have no credible witness to prove the dates from the carbon testing are correct.

Did I say that Pangaea was the only supercontinent? Did I even hint at it?

You believe that the Earth is billions of years old, and that Pangaea did not separate until a few hundred million years ago. So, clearly for a long time the Earth was one continent, and then divided. What is so hard to accept about what I said? Stating that the Earth divided is not vague. It either divides, or it doesn't.

One person mentioned their pagan ancestors. Let me ask: is the foam universe theory not a valid theory? Then, clearly your ancestors were on to something, weren't they?

I offer a test. In the next post, let's count how many insults I receive verses how many insults I doled out in this post.

Do not judge all Christians based on what you see on the Benny Hin television broadcasts. I watch him for the laughs -- not for spiritual guidance. I don't care for con artists like that either.

femoimal

12-20-2007, 11:47 AM

good evidence as you state would be nothing short of a time machine. Really, nothing less would do.
I cannot build it yet, my little sister stole the lawnmower which i intended to use as negative energy emitter in order to stabilize the wormhole i was going to use. As i already burnt my grandfather's gramophone in order to build the antenna to communicate with Houston when i am back in time, it might take a few more weeks.

Meanwhile, i enjoy a good reading. "Saint Thomas D'Aquin versus Godzilla". Some say that the obscene amount of super-weapons Godzilla sports could spark a controversy. I only think it is fair, given the super powers Thomas boasts. G'day !

Anoiktos

12-20-2007, 1:56 PM

good evidence as you state would be nothing short of a time machine.
In addition, whilst you wait for good evidence of scientific phenomena or theories, you seem to be able to get by on no evidence of divine phenomena or theories.

Veeger

12-20-2007, 2:18 PM

That is true -- I am happy to believe something without evidence while you are willing to believe something with poor and inadequate evidence. Yet, I am willing to argue my point without insulting yours, while you cannot attempt to help me see yours without shooting down my points as you would a 10 year old stating that the world is square.

2 men walk into a bar. One claims that he went to Africa and peacefully lived and played with the local gorillas. The other claims that gorillas maimed and assaulted his entire party and produces a picture of a gorilla roaring over the bodies of bloodied men on the ground, dead. The two men argue, but you are heading to Africa yourself and decide to take action based upon the photograph.

While in Africa you see a gorilla, and immediately shoot it. The family quickly emerges out of the forest and 3 of your men die before you can get away.

Returning to town, you find yourself arrested and ridiculed for believing as you did. Eventually you return to the bar back home, and confront the man with the picture.

It was photoshopped.

You took the word of the man with faulty evidence over the man without evidence but who had been speaking the truth.

This is crude, I realize, but the point is still valid. When all other possibilities have been disproven, the impossible, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Gencide, which fallacie says that claiming a proof you know is proven to be inaccurate is wrong? I'm sure there is one.

Anoiktos

12-20-2007, 2:43 PM

You took the word of the man with faulty evidence over the man without evidence but who had been speaking the truth.

This is crude, I realize, but the point is still valid. When all other possibilities have been disproven, the impossible, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
You are saying that any and all proof can and should be ignored in favor of nontruth; in essence, that something with no proof is better than something with some proof because something with some proof can have false proof.

By this logic, absolutely any proof is worthless (because there will always be someone trying to poke holes in it), and your strange acceptance of nonproof over possibly false proof is questionable at best.

I take it you apply a similar set of logic to everyday decisions like drinking water? According to your logic, to not drink the water, secure in the knowledge that its necessity for life is based on evidence which is possibly false, because your inedia/breatharianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia)-toting book, showing even less to no evidence, is thus obviously a better alternative?

Veeger

12-20-2007, 7:25 PM

Now you're just trying to be funny. Did I say no proof is better than some proof? I said using proof that has been proven to be inacurate, or in many cases flat-out false, is worst than no proof at all.

Using the above analogy, had you inquired in more detail about the photograph (where it was taken, what time of day it was, the circumstances surrounding the supposed attack, how someone was able to take such a steady and clear picture while running for their lives, etc) the picture would certainly have been discredited. However, you took it as proof enough of gorilla's hostility without questioning the proof.

It is not lack of proof that I choose to believe in. Rather my distrust of disproven methods continued to be used simply because they further the evidence you are looking for. I don't have to 'look' for the faults in the current methods of dating -- they are plain as the words on the front page of a news paper.

You have eyes, but you are not seeing. I'm not asking you to believe me -- those words have never been uttered by me. I am asking, however, that you pay closer attention to what you claim as irrefutable truth and at least consider other possibilities. That is all that being open minded requires. The consideration.

Anoiktos

12-20-2007, 7:58 PM

pay closer attention to what you claim as irrefutable truth and at least consider other possibilities.
Exactly. As I said before:
The difference, then, is that science invites anyone who wishes to question their findings, and grants them the means to do so, wheras religion creates findings that have no means of falsification whatsoever.

Thus you are advocating the preference of something with questionable evidence to something with no evidence. While doing nothing - that is to say, not acting on the questionable evidence - is a reasonable reaction to having questionable evidence, questionable evidence does not mean a course of action with no evidence to condone it, or at least evidence far more contradictory than that of the other questionable evidence is a better alternative.

I said:

I consider attempts to depreciate a knowledge of science, as in the OP's case, to be detrimental to the intelligence of children, making it more difficult for them to understand concepts that are actually physically applicable in real life and instead teaching them unverifiable things.

If someone wants to put their kid in a class on religion, I don't think it's a good idea, but it is their kid. If someone wants to *replace their science class with one on religion*, then I have a problem.

Scientific principles grant us verifiable evidence. They define what is verifiable evidence by using a system that encourages multiple testing and falsification by other scientists. It encourages competition among these scientists to falsify others' theories. Religion grants only the truth stated in its doctrine, and no falsifiable evidence supporting that truth nor capability for change or adaptation.

It is this lack of adaptation or falsifiability that makes religion, to me, something that should not be taught at the expense of science, if only for the self-interest of the human race as a whole. While religion fights as hard as it can against progress, change, and adaptation, science (usually) supports it.

See Galileo. See Einstein's problems with trying to find a 'universal constant'. See the reasons Copernicus had for not emphasizing his astrological findings. See stem-cell research.

I will admit that the scientific community has been plagued, of late, by corruption and private interest, making certain advances less successful due to financial interest in their failure; this, however, is more a fault of capitalism than of the scientific method.

Haladras

12-20-2007, 9:21 PM

I am NOT some country bumpkin who cannot perform basic algebra. Or understand how radio waves function. TV is not 'magic'. You, all of you, assume the instant that I profess my beliefs that I am an idiot.

Never ever said that you did.

I have said this before, but some of the names here are new to me, so I will repeat myself. The word 'yom' can be defined several ways, but the Bible does not just say 'it was a day'. It clearly states there was day, and then night, equaling a day.

May I remind you that the Bible has been translated into at least four different ANCIENT languages, of which the Old Testament was translated without vowels? Do you really think that a version of ol' King James just fell out of the sky and hit some scholar on the head?

You believe that the Earth is billions of years old, and that Pangaea did not separate until a few hundred million years ago. So, clearly for a long time the Earth was one continent, and then divided. What is so hard to accept about what I said? Stating that the Earth divided is not vague. It either divides, or it doesn't.

Did I ever say that I believed in the Theory of Evolution, necessarily? No, I did not. Stop acting defensive and start dealing with the issues. Start proving this:

I am also not unswavering in what I say. I have an open mind, and am willing to reconsider my stance when faced with good evidence. Good evidence.

Unless you want to believe the Earth rotated once every several thousand days back 'in the day', you can't refute the Bible states 24 hour days.

One o' those who believes that English is the only language, eh?

Carbon dating is untrustworthy. The fossil record is untrustworthy. Everything you have stated as 'proof' of Evolution requires faith, on your part, that the dates are correct. Like it or not, argue the point or not, you were not there when the creatures in the fossil record died, and know no one who did either, so you have no credible witness to prove the dates from the carbon testing are correct.

Response:

Saying that faith is based completely on fact is not exactly true, but much of it is pure believe as well. These small, epic interpretations of evidence, if put in a certain way, can all lead up to a conclusion that points the opposite direction. For example, the entire myth that Xmas "crosses out" Christ (actually, the X is the Greek symbol for Christ).

All of reality rests on your interpretation of it.

Surely you have heard of the experiment where they petrified wood in a matter of years, then the carbon test claimed it was hundreds of years old when the scientists doing the carbon test are the same ones who selected the tree for the experiment!

Specifics it is, then (by the way, it isn't based on carbon dating-it's based on astronomy). Give us a source and I'll buy it, but "faking it" by acting arrogant is not the way to convince. As Ayn Rand once said: "An argument through intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence."

Veeger

12-21-2007, 12:46 AM

I do not have time tonight to address everything, but I will tomorrow at some point.

I am not being defensive. I enjoy these conversations and have missed them dearly. I must pull myself away from Morrowind more often to partake in them. If I seemed defensive, please accept my apologies. It was not the intention

And no, of course english is not the only language. I own over 24 Bibles in every translation currently in print. I don't claim the Bible says anything until I've read the same verse in each translation. Because yes, things can be misinterpretted based on one translation over another.

For example, in David when he is describing the anti-christ according to the angel that visited him. He says in one translation that the anti-christ will reject the desires of women. Taken by itself, you may think that the anti-christ will be homosexual. Yet, in another version it says that the anti-christ will reject the gods (relegions) of women.

Now, that does make sense if you read the first version a verse or two behind, which says that the anti-christ will reject the religious desires of men and the desires of women -- but the misunderstanding could still cause confusion. Reading multiple translations of the Bible is key to fully understand what is being read.

I look forward to saving the money necessary to attend seminary so I can learn Hebrew and Greek so I can read the original texts myself.

femoimal

12-21-2007, 3:59 AM

if i were you, i would invest in learning Sanskrit to read the Vedas, Hebrew to read the Torah, classic Arabic to learn the Qu'ran, braille for parkinsonians to learn the Dianetics, Avestan to be unbeatable about Zoroastrianism, and Chinese to learn by heart the daozangs and the instruction-manuals of modern home appliances. Anyhow you must be right, nothing of interest has been written since the days of the epics of Gilgamesh.

It is odd to devote so much energy in studying archaic texts. I do not find it risible though, nono, pull down your crosses and stop the march of the martyrs, there is an attraction to what is ancient that is omnipresent in us, attraction that i have not escaped myself. That's i suppose why i read economical Confucian newspapers (he got it all right centuries ago, why bother with Greespan, my investments rock) and Reuters news in ancient greek. Did you hear that Agamemnon did not declare his Phrygian maid to the immigrations services ? (no, not frigid)

That brings up the following question that massages my bowels : why dwell in the past ? Why search in some recited archaic tales the values of today ? The world has changed, we have changed. Can you use the bible to prove anything else than man's fright at looking at the future ?

Well, it is okay to be scared. I get dizzy at the meaningless of it all. Reading about sciences, history, philosophy and the rest does not directly give me comfort and a purpose in life. Nah that would be too easy. It gives me knowledge, power and confidence, and recurring headaches (try immunology as a bed-time reading). For the 'moral' (sic) part, I stick by the rules inherited by our Australopithecus ancestors that lived in groups : cooperative societies are more endurable than non-cooperative. I help, let myself be helped, do not harm people and try and contribute to a better future. I do not need some obscure archaic poem to tell me how, even apes do it (heretic spoiler follows : no, apes are cousins, not fathers).

i still enjoy a good banana every now and then.

Seal

12-21-2007, 8:14 AM

The fossil record is NOT good evidence. It has holes, the fossils jump around the timelines, we discover creatures every day that we thought were extinct only to feel stupid when we suddenly find some alive and quite well. Our assumptions based upon the record are not concrete in any way, and so to use it as proof of anything is fanciful.

Surely you have heard of the experiment where they petrified wood in a matter of years, then the carbon test claimed it was hundreds of years old when the scientists doing the carbon test are the same ones who selected the tree for the experiment!

Carbon dating is untrustworthy. The fossil record is untrustworthy. Everything you have stated as 'proof' of Evolution requires faith, on your part, that the dates are correct. Like it or not, argue the point or not, you were not there when the creatures in the fossil record died, and know no one who did either, so you have no credible witness to prove the dates from the carbon testing are correct.

do you realize there are other forms of placing ancient items on a timeline apart from carbon half-life measurement?

for instance earth layers. because measuring C-14 is not trivial, archaeologists primarily trace their findings' time upon the layer they found it on. the layers can usually be identified and through our knowledge of weather, climate and how fast new earth settles on the general vicinity those layers can have their primetime measured.

there are for sure other ways of determining in what timeline an ancient item belongs in. i'm not an archaeologist. i though trust them enough to measure, according to the circumstances, whether an item is from last year, from the last century, the last ten thousand years or even millions of the years. the exact time is not relevant, nor are the few hard-to-time items, just that the order of magnitude is sensibly measured.

femoimal

12-21-2007, 8:33 AM

Listen up lads, i figured out the solution to all our problems !

Before i am stoned to death, i would like to point out that this writing is solely intended to reach a compromise and end the naughty war between science and faith. As the bible seems to be the pivot of Christian doctrine, and since some people take for granted anything it says, i came up with an idea: why not update the bible, since millennia of progress cannot update the people reading it ? Ah ! so simple, but no-one thought of it before !
Using today's knowledge and logics, i bring you an epic tale that is absolutely absurdity-free, and perhaps the future rosetta-stone of science/religion reconciliation. Alleluyah.:rolleyes:

so here is the genesis, updated.

1- In the beginning God created Himself.

2- And the Universe was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of cosmogony. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Dimensional Membranes.

3- And Said, Let there be a spark : and there was a Big Bang.

4- And God saw the particles, Space and Time, that is was good: and God divided the 4 forces of the Universe.

5- And God called the forces Strong nuclear interaction, Weak nuclear interaction, gravitation and Electro-magnetism. In a planck-dimension time-span, the forces all parted, and as the universe cooled down came the cosmic inflation.

6- And God Said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the universe, and let it divide matter from anti-matter.

7- And God made the firmament, and divided the matter from the anti-matter, so that only matter would bloom in the universe: and it was so.

8- And God called the firmament Laws of Physics. And the Whole Creation would run by them.

9- And God said, Let the matter be gathered together unto one fiery place, and let the nuclear fusion begin: and it was so.

10- And God called the nuclear fusion fires Stars; and the gathering together of inter-stellar dust the Planets: and God saw that it was good.

11- And God said, let the Planetary Surface bring forth self-replicating macromolecules, the meteoritic showers yielding the water, the primordial amino-acid soup yielding the molecules, the sun yielding energy, and the molecules yielding copies of themselves.

12- And thus the Planetary surface brought forward life on a mineral substrate surface of argile or in shallow ponds, life yielding macro-molecule whose seed is in itself.

13- And life thus went on to evolve on its own.

14- And God said, Let be other nuclear furnaces in the Universe and let them cluster into galaxie and start the nucleo-synthesis process in their hearts.

15- Let those furnaces explode furiously and scatter their heavy elements into space to seed life in the universe: and it was so.

16- And God made two great energy sources; the nuclear fusion to light our stars, and the nuclear fission to power our home appliances.

17- And God set them in the firmament to give heat and chemical bonds storing energy upon the earth.

18- And to rule amongst the weapons of mass destruction, and to divide the thermonuclear from the simple atomic bomb: and God saw that it was good.

19- And all chemical, atmospherical and geological processes thus stemmed from the fusion of light atoms or the alpha-particle emission of heavy atoms.

...that's it so far. Any comments ? None ? okay.

Oblongato

12-21-2007, 5:44 PM

Protogod

12-21-2007, 6:16 PM

That is true -- I am happy to believe something without evidence while you are willing to believe something with poor and inadequate evidence. Yet, I am willing to argue my point without insulting yours, while you cannot attempt to help me see yours without shooting down my points as you would a 10 year old stating that the world is square.
This adds absolutely no weight to your argument, kiddo.

We do have evidence, you do not. Thats +1 science. You then try to compensate for this innate incongruence by claiming that we've used (gasp) insults, and you have not. Your hopes that insults vs no insults would even the score at 1-1 has failed. Although insults may not add evidence, they do not detract from evidence that has already been presented. Facts are not subjective. Insults do not change them.

The insults originate at the sheer stubbornness & hardheadedness of arguing without anything to add to the debate. Produce some sort of point to your belief or there is no reason to believe it. You act as if having some, or incomplete evidence is impotent when faced with a lack of evidence. The bottom line is that some is better than none.

You may not be "some country bumpkin" but it is undeniable that you are being as hardheaded as one, by even attempting to claim that zero > a positive nonzero. Clearly, this is relatable to basic algebra skills, as you've refuted.

Haladras

12-21-2007, 8:47 PM

You might have something there if you left out the God part. For people who think anything like the way I do, there is no way to reconcile religion and science. If you think religion and science can be reconciled, you should check your religion, or check your science.

There are approximately 93 specific fine-tunings in the universe that are so incredibly impossible that it possibly points to God. This number is growing...

I'm not saying that science is a fake or completely reliable, but it can be turned on its head and it's permissable to do so. That's one of the beauties of science.

Atheism, by the way, is just as much a school of faith as any other religion. You can neither prove nor disprove a negative (aka: something that you do not have the equipment or materials to deal with). Atheism and Agnosticism is, just like any religion, based around the absence of fact. The idea of Christians and Atheists proclaiming themselves as more righteous than the other is ludicrous. But, then again, all die-hard nuts are...

UMSLdragon

12-22-2007, 2:14 AM

My eyes hurt. I just skimmed the entire five pages... now I'm tired... reply tommorrow lol, jk.

Starting off with the 25th post that Veeger wrote and to the topic:

That bible can back itself up. When you think about it, the bible as we know it is just a colaboration of books written over a large (and I mean large) amount of time. Genesis was written by Moses... or, God told him and he wrote it down. Then you jump all the way to the new testiment... they're not all one book. The bible is a bunch of 66 books. So, I don't see any problem as to how they can't prove themselves? If the things (even half of them) were written from the authors experience, and it also happened to back up what Joe-blow wrote +100yrs before, then... I don't see the problem here...

At some other topic of debate: science is faith and faith is science. If God created everything, then he created the idea of science. You can't seperate the two.

2 men walk into a bar. One claims that he went to Africa and peacefully lived and played with the local gorillas. The other claims that gorillas maimed and assaulted his entire party and produces a picture of a gorilla roaring over the bodies of bloodied men on the ground, dead. The two men argue, but you are heading to Africa yourself and decide to take action based upon the photograph.

While in Africa you see a gorilla, and immediately shoot it. The family quickly emerges out of the forest and 3 of your men die before you can get away.

Returning to town, you find yourself arrested and ridiculed for believing as you did. Eventually you return to the bar back home, and confront the man with the picture.

It was photoshopped.

You took the word of the man with faulty evidence over the man without evidence but who had been speaking the truth.

This is crude, I realize, but the point is still valid. When all other possibilities have been disproven, the impossible, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Gencide, which fallacie says that claiming a proof you know is proven to be inaccurate is wrong? I'm sure there is one.
First part: after they walked into the bar, they both said, "ou!" lol

To make that story better, you could say that the man with the picture had actually shot the gorrilla family adn just based that they were all bad. While in fact that the guerillas (stupid speeling) were nice until attacked. Thus, man number two (the one who was going) didn't understand and or made the wrong ussumption without all the facts. Anyway, liked the story :P

@femoial; post #44:
How about the saying, "Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it"? or something like that...
Nothing ever changes in this world. With the exception of technology, nothing changes. Men still think they can rule the world; women still like men, men still like women (for the most part anyways lol) Even tech doesn't change... I don't know! I'm going out on a limb here!

How about this though:
"Everything Is Meaningless
1 The words of the Teacher, [a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."

3 What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?

4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.

5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.

8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

11 There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.

Wisdom Is Meaningless
12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
15 What is twisted cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.
Pleasures Are Meaningless
1 I thought in my heart, "Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good." But that also proved to be meaningless. 2 "Laughter," I said, "is foolish. And what does pleasure accomplish?" 3 I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly—my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was worthwhile for men to do under heaven during the few days of their lives.
4 I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. 5 I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. 8 I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired men and women singers, and a harem [a] as well—the delights of the heart of man. 9 I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me.

10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my work,
and this was the reward for all my labor.

11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun.

Wisdom and Folly Are Meaningless
12 Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom,
and also madness and folly.
What more can the king's successor do
than what has already been done?
13 I saw that wisdom is better than folly,
just as light is better than darkness.

14 The wise man has eyes in his head,
while the fool walks in the darkness;
but I came to realize
that the same fate overtakes them both.

15 Then I thought in my heart,
"The fate of the fool will overtake me also.
What then do I gain by being wise?"
I said in my heart,
"This too is meaningless."

16 For the wise man, like the fool, will not be long remembered;
in days to come both will be forgotten.
Like the fool, the wise man too must die!

Toil Is Meaningless
17 So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. 18 I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. 19 And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have control over all the work into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. 20 So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun. 21 For a man may do his work with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then he must leave all he owns to someone who has not worked for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune. 22 What does a man get for all the toil and anxious striving with which he labors under the sun? 23 All his days his work is pain and grief; even at night his mind does not rest. This too is meaningless.
24 A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, 25 for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? 26 To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind."

That was Ecclesiastes 1 and 2. Interesting eh? Even though people won't be remebered, some wisdom can be. If people can learn about somethings that happened in the past, then maybe they won't happen again in the future... that's hopeful thinking.

And people have thought of updating the bible. It's called different versions. I call it, dumbying it up for those that don't read. And it was funny... slightly. I just gave up reading it because it made me sick :P

@Seal:
Try this experiment. You get a tub, put some gravel, dirt, sand, small rocks, larger rocks, I don't care... and fill it with water. Then you close the open end, sake it all up for as little or as long as you want and when you stop the shaking and let it settle, you fill find that it settle within, 5ish minutes. Maybe even less give or take. You will notice that all your strata is formed there, not in billions of years as assumed, but in five(ish) minutes RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES!!! How's that?

I also like who the theory of evolution and the writing of creation in Genesis is totally sdrawkcab. I don't know who mentioned it, but thanks for refeshing my memory. Now I just have to go back to my friend and start that discussion over again. And then tell him that evolution and creation are polar. He thinks that God used evolution to perfect His technique. he gave a very very good explanation to back it up that anyone that wasn't paying attention or didn't know any better would have agreed with him. I did agree with him half heartily saying that even though your theory seems logical on it's own, it just doesn't seem right in God's character to do it that way. So, thanks for the reminder whom ever it was.

As for the hard-hearted par there Proto, the bible (in some gospel) it says to not let ideas of false prophets (people trying to bring some "new light" to something and confuse people, not to say that you people are, but it is somewhat difficult to not go along with the fair logic that is being put forward here) sway our minds into thinking/believing something that is against what God is trying to teach... Hope that one made sense...

Anyways, hope to follow this topic from now on.. finally got the net back up at my place. Stupid viral infections... someone on the net was playing sex with ma computer... and won!

UMSL
Just ignore that last bit, ok?

femoimal

12-22-2007, 2:51 AM

Dragon, the layers in geology are
- crushed
- compressed
- heated up
- melted
- radioactively inactivated or transmuted if you prefer
- vitrified sometimes
- crystallized because of all the other processes
- sometimes many times the above
- washed out

etc...etc...

i repeat : do not talk about something you know so little about. What you describe in your bathtub experiment is cooking lessons for Cyclops. Though the ancient poem had nice turns of words in it.

... nothing ever changes but technology ? What, your body does not change, the human body in general does not change ? Philosophy has not progressed, advanced or mutated ? Psychology ? Medecine ? Physics ? Music ? Arts ?
actually you are touching something here. Indeed i think the basic instincts of man are (very very) slow to change, at lest those biologically anchored (incest, domination ans so forth), but the man today is not the man just learning to cut stone tools. As a matter of fact, the only thing not changing is the dogma (or at least if tries its best not to). I intended to show that with my genesis pun: if you align it with something modern, with the achievements of today's man, you get a giant damp squid.
Oblongato, of course i left the God thing in it, what would be the point otherwise ? As UMSLdragon so kindly pointed out, there where some attempts at dumbing out the bible so as to make it more understandable. I just did the opposite.

If God made everything and has a plan for everything, who are we to discuss it ? We should dynamite the forum up to avoid a bad case of terminal Hubris.

Protogod

12-22-2007, 12:18 PM

i repeat : do not talk about something you know so little about.

I think that sums up a response to his entire post. He really didn't present any arguments, he just made one huge quote of the bible, which I found to not actually verify anything.

I'm also not getting this "they're different books so it's proof!" evidence. I'm getting the feeling you guys are ignoring the simple fact that the bible was edited and recompiled many many times, in order to make it fit best. Even WITH all that editing, it still contradicts itself on several occasions.

Just because it was made of more than one book does not = proof. I really just don't get your 1 + 1 = 4 logic.

And I dont even believe that you consider your response (to my argument) to be apt. At all. I can say "beware of false prophets who will sway you from science" and then any point against science can fall under that quote and be useless.

Okay, so they said beware of false prophets. That's just the bible trying to protect itself from new ideas. Essentially what its saying is that anything that goes against the bible is wrong, which frankly is just a chauvinistic "the world revolves around me" lie.

Come up with something more substantial, something more empirical and less subjective. Something that is proof, instead of flowery words that look pretty and don't mean anything. Something that isn't ignorant.

Oblongato

12-22-2007, 1:17 PM

There are approximately 93 specific fine-tunings in the universe that are so incredibly impossible that it possibly points to God. This number is growing...

"Approximately" 93? Don't you mean exactly 93? And I would need not only examples of this growing number but also your rationale for saying they "possibly" point to God.

There's nothing that points or "possibly" points to God in science. Unless you define God as "whatever is responsible for the things we haven't figured out yet." Of course, by that definition, God gets a little smaller every time we figure out something new.

I'm not saying that science is a fake or completely reliable, but it can be turned on its head and it's permissable to do so. That's one of the beauties of science.

Science can never be turned on its head. (It is only a method for organizing information logically into a coherent picture.) Only scientific theories can be turned on their heads, but any theory with a fair amount of research behind it is very unlikely to be turned on its head. Most theories are modified when new information is available.

Atheism, by the way, is just as much a school of faith as any other religion. You can neither prove nor disprove a negative (aka: something that you do not have the equipment or materials to deal with). Atheism and Agnosticism is, just like any religion, based around the absence of fact. The idea of Christians and Atheists proclaiming themselves as more righteous than the other is ludicrous. But, then again, all die-hard nuts are...

Atheism is simply the absence of theism. If an idea is completely unsubstantiated, I don't believe it. If it contradicts one or more ideas that are substantiated, I would consider it absurd, depending on the degree to which it contradicted the evidence. Atheism is the opposite of religion, by definition.

Please note that I am not attacking religion here. People are free to believe what they like. The problem for me arises when the term logic is falsely applied to things that are not even remotely related to logic.

Consider the fact that if you could really prove the existence of God using logic and science, God would be the subject of scientific study, not religious study. We would study God just as we now study the solar system, nature etc. And there would no longer be any point to religion, because it would be reality and would not require faith. That is why there is a difference between religion and science. Religion studies something for which there is not even the slightest speck of evidence. This lack of evidence is what keeps science from meddling with religion. Perhaps religious people should be thankful, therefore, that there is no evidence.

Gunmonk

12-22-2007, 1:39 PM

I think that sums up a response to his entire post. He really didn't present any arguments, he just made one huge quote of the bible, which I found to not actually verify anything.

I'm also not getting this "they're different books so it's proof!" evidence. I'm getting the feeling you guys are ignoring the simple fact that the bible was edited and recompiled many many times, in order to make it fit best. Even WITH all that editing, it still contradicts itself on several occasions.

Just because it was made of more than one book does not = proof. I really just don't get your 1 + 1 = 4 logic.

And I dont even believe that you consider your response (to my argument) to be apt. At all. I can say "beware of false prophets who will sway you from science" and then any point against science can fall under that quote and be useless.

Okay, so they said beware of false prophets. That's just the bible trying to protect itself from new ideas. Essentially what its saying is that anything that goes against the bible is wrong, which frankly is just a chauvinistic "the world revolves around me" lie.

Come up with something more substantial, something more empirical and less subjective. Something that is proof, instead of flowery words that look pretty and don't mean anything. Something that isn't ignorant.

You only disprove it because you refuse to have any belief in it. You still, say to me that the bible contradicts itself, but what about Noah's Ark? They have found it, its even on top of Mount Ararat. Yet you still say that the bible contradicts itself. The deluge even leaves room for evolution, and the formation of fossil fuels. In leaving room for evolution, the bible presents a given that there were only two of each kind, not species, but genus. Given that the two species from that kind reproduced, there is plenty of room for snakes, for example to have venom galnds. Fossil fuels, things dying, covered by sediment, under immense pressure (water) decomposing. I should think the presence of oil in places like the middle east should be enough for people to believe that creation, nay, at least something started off there.

Okay, so they said beware of false prophets. That's just the bible trying to protect itself from new ideas. Essentially what its saying is that anything that goes against the bible is wrong, which frankly is just a chauvinistic "the world revolves around me" lie.

Atheism also says, "beware of the bible" "beware of the thoughts of a higher being" is not atheism doing the same thing then? Atheism is more chavinistic than christianity could ever hope to be, saying that there is absolutely no God, sounds pretty sure of themselves to me... does it not to you?

I think that sums up a response to his entire post. He really didn't present any arguments, he just made one huge quote of the bible, which I found to not actually verify anything.

Ummm, proto, I know you have a bible, I know that you know the context he was using it in. He was saying only that science will fail, afterall, science can not show us where the matter was at the time of the big bang, and science and evolution, another religion, both contradict themselves in major ways, for instance the second law of thermodynamics, and for evolution, the formation of nucleiotides in such an orer that they created DNA, and a couple of trillion years later a cell and a couple of trillion years after that, a cat? Tell me what seems a little more far fetched, the bible, or your precious religion protogod?

Heh Richard Dawkins does not exist, sure I've seen pictures of him, seen different things he's written, but why would he not reveal himself to me?

Dark_Soul74

12-22-2007, 2:31 PM

You only disprove it because you refuse to have any belief in it. You still, say to me that the bible contradicts itself, but what about Noah's Ark? They have found it, its even on top of Mount Ararat. Yet you still say that the bible contradicts itself. The deluge even leaves room for evolution, and the formation of fossil fuels. In leaving room for evolution, the bible presents a given that there were only two of each kind, not species, but genus. Given that the two species from that kind reproduced, there is plenty of room for snakes, for example to have venom galnds. Fossil fuels, things dying, covered by sediment, under immense pressure (water) decomposing. I should think the presence of oil in places like the middle east should be enough for people to believe that creation, nay, at least something started off there.They found a boat. Now, either this is something that should be linked to, or it's a gross overstatement. Evidence, please!

Evolution takes a long time. How long, exactly, is the period of time between modern times and the Ark? Keep in mind, also, that a species is defined as something that can reproduce with itself. If I take two animals from different species, but the same genus, they're not likely to have fertile offspring, let alone any at all.

What about Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico? There is oil there. In fact, oil is pretty much everywhere.

Atheism also says, "beware of the bible" "beware of the thoughts of a higher being" is not atheism doing the same thing then? Atheism is more chavinistic than christianity could ever hope to be, saying that there is absolutely no God, sounds pretty sure of themselves to me... does it not to you?Depends on the person, really. Claiming the absolute existence or lack thereof of a deity is fairly common on both sides. Anyone else would be closer to agnostic, would they not?

Although, I should say that a number of organizations with countless followers that pray daily towards an unproven entity, causing some to devote their lives to it entirely, and even starting a major number of wars could be considered a tad more chauvinistic than some guys simply saying that an unprovable entity does not exist.

Ummm, proto, I know you have a bible, I know that you know the context he was using it in. He was saying only that science will fail, afterall, science can not show us where the matter was at the time of the big bang, and science and evolution, another religion, both contradict themselves in major ways, for instance the second law of thermodynamics, and for evolution, the formation of nucleiotides in such an orer that they created DNA, and a couple of trillion years later a cell and a couple of trillion years after that, a cat? Tell me what seems a little more far fetched, the bible, or your precious religion protogod?Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory.

How exactly is the second law of thermodynamics contradictory? Do you even know what entropy means?

The classical comparison of random chance versus equally large gamble on a superpowerful entity. Ah. Now, are you trying to say something here, or just spouting a random Christian "factoid"? The argument of "that's ridiculous, yo!" applies to both, does it not?

masterofhobbiton

12-22-2007, 4:27 PM

Atheism also says, "beware of the bible" "beware of the thoughts of a higher being" is not atheism doing the same thing then? Atheism is more chavinistic than christianity could ever hope to be, saying that there is absolutely no God, sounds pretty sure of themselves to me... does it not to you?

Here's the thing, Gunmonk: Atheism isn't a religion. There are no teachings of atheism, no places to learn how to be atheist; it's not an organised body as christianity is. Atheism says nothing, because there is nothing called atheism. It's the absence of a specific belief, not a way of believing on its own. I could be atheist and believe that the universe doesn't really exist, it's just some weird subconcious hallucination and someone else could believe in a random big bang creation and we would both be atheist, but we never mentioned the bible. You can't say, "atheists feel sure of themselves," because they could all believe something different anyway. "Atheism" does not say to beware of thoughts of a higher being, because there are no rules to atheism or teachings of atheism or anything. Atheism says nothing, nobody speaks for atheism, there is no specific way to be atheist, there are no atheist customs, nothing. Atheism is different for every individual, and if an atheist changes his mind and thinks that god does not exist, he's no longer atheist. He doesn't think, "gah, impure thoughts!" and go meditate or anything; it's not a way of life and does not say anything about how people should act because it's not a single thing.

Gunmonk

12-23-2007, 1:33 AM

Here's the thing, Gunmonk: Atheism isn't a religion. There are no teachings of atheism, no places to learn how to be atheist; it's not an organised body as christianity is. Atheism says nothing, because there is nothing called atheism. It's the absence of a specific belief, not a way of believing on its own. I could be atheist and believe that the universe doesn't really exist, it's just some weird subconcious hallucination and someone else could believe in a random big bang creation and we would both be atheist, but we never mentioned the bible. You can't say, "atheists feel sure of themselves," because they could all believe something different anyway. "Atheism" does not say to beware of thoughts of a higher being, because there are no rules to atheism or teachings of atheism or anything. Atheism says nothing, nobody speaks for atheism, there is no specific way to be atheist, there are no atheist customs, nothing. Atheism is different for every individual, and if an atheist changes his mind and thinks that god does not exist, he's no longer atheist. He doesn't think, "gah, impure thoughts!" and go meditate or anything; it's not a way of life and does not say anything about how people should act because it's not a single thing.

Hope you like eating... cause here you go having to eat your own...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

The first manifesto, entitled simply A Humanist Manifesto, was written in 1933 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933) primarily by Roy Wood Sellars and Raymond Bragg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Bragg) and was published with thirty-four signatories including philosopher John Dewey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey). Unlike the later ones, the first Manifesto talked of a new "religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)", and referred to Humanism as a religious movement to transcend and replace previous religions based on allegations of supernatural revelation. The document outlines a fifteen-point belief system, which, in addition to a secular outlook, opposes "acquisitive and profit-motivated society" and outlines a worldwide egalitarian society based on voluntary mutual cooperation, language which was considerably softened by the Humanists' board, owners of the document, twenty years later.

They found a boat. Now, either this is something that should be linked to, or it's a gross overstatement. Evidence, please!

Evolution takes a long time. How long, exactly, is the period of time between modern times and the Ark? Keep in mind, also, that a species is defined as something that can reproduce with itself. If I take two animals from different species, but the same genus, they're not likely to have fertile offspring, let alone any at all.

What about Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico? There is oil there. In fact, oil is pretty much everywhere.

If I may...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0427_040427_noahsark_2.html

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/the_remains_of_noahs_ark.html

Anyways. yes there is oil in the gulf, however not in the same quantities as the middle east

Dark_Soul74

12-23-2007, 9:39 AM

1) Your own article just said it wasn't a religion. It's just legally considered one for the sake of allowing those who believe in it to follow a non-religion.

2) That article says they "think" it's the Ark. They still haven't been to it, much less actually proved that it is the actual Ark.

3) There's oil everywhere. I don't even see what the hell you're trying to argue at this point.

Protogod

12-23-2007, 12:09 PM

1) Your own article just said it wasn't a religion. It's just legally considered one for the sake of allowing those who believe in it to follow a non-religion. In other words, gunny needs to actually READ his articles in stead of looking at the pretty headlines.

2) That article says they "think" it's the Ark. They still haven't been to it, much less actually proved that it is the actual Ark.

If I may - "On the one hand, I'm hopeful. On the other hand, I'm very skeptical" of the validity of the satellite images, said Rex Geissler, president of ArcImaging (Archaeological Imaging Research Consortium). "There is no publicly available picture that readily shows a man-made object that has any clarity whatsoever … Some of the photos are outright misrepresentations, non-scientific, and do not prove anything.
"We think that with the hundreds of explorers who have visited the region, if the ark was jutting out of the ice, it would be obvious."

so yeah, that's your your "evidence" that it's the ark. Even the headline is "noah's ark found?" noting the questionmark

And possibly the most telling part of your post is that your final link goes to a site called "specialtyinterests.net"

If that wasn't the most biased, unreliable source you could find, I'd be surprised. Gunmonk, please READ the things you post before you post them. Your links contain no real evidence if examined closely.

Gunmonk

12-23-2007, 8:14 PM

In other words, gunny needs to actually READ his articles in stead of looking at the pretty headlines.

Null its legally protected as a religion, therefore putting it in the same realm as christianity. Furthermore a founder of your movement, John Dewey, called it a new type of religion, and referred to it as a religious movement. I don't see why you and Darksoul are trying to refute this, other than it might undermine atheisms image. But I digress, atheism, at least the way you and darksoul follow it, is allot like catholicism, with Dawkins as its pope, and science its koran, or bible, or what have you.

And possibly the most telling part of your post is that your final link goes to a site called "specialtyinterests.net"
And possibly the most telling of yours was that you fail to answer my questions presented to you. I read it, and just because its from a specialty interest site, you often link to the nizkor project to justify atheism and refute others statements. Seeing as how the nizkor project is about why people dont believe the holocaust ever happened, I should think we're even now. Did you not see pictures though? Metal rivets, if you see and still refuse to admit the truth all in the name of some half assed argument, the I dont know why I even bother. History has proven the bible, and the way the bible interweaves with itself in a completely coherent fashion, then why is it so hard to admit the bible may hold some validity? Science has been and will forever be bent towards ones biases, you cant recreate life with just a bunch of amino acids randomly assembling, I havent seen anyone explain to me where matter comes from in such a way that the big bang was possible. It looks to me that Atheism, nay Science has many more faults than a harry potter book could ever have even if I wrote it. I have yet to see missing links between man and ape, that arent falsified, I havent seen any missing links between cats and dogs, and come to think of it I cant think of any missing links I've ever seen. You say God doesnt exist? Work on evolution first.

Darksoul, now it is your turn. OIL, in my original post, I stated that it was possible, for oil to be formed by Animals and people dying, and the dead matter decomposing being covered by sediment, and immense force and pressure from the water on top of the sediment and decaying animals should be enough to create oil. Then, I used that to make a second point. Why is there a fuckload of oil in the middle east? Granted oil is everywhere, but not in the same quantities or concentration as it is found in the middle east. Simply throwing red herrings out there will not work with me. And yes Atheism being legally a religion is more than enough for me to say, that yes you are a religious person, it seems to me that if you werent, you would be a member of the first church of apathy.

What I dont understand is this, you spend more time refuting statements than you do actually answering questions. The way you do it reminds me a bit of hillary and bill. So, in all fairness, I've done my best to answer yours, now lets see if you can answer mine.

Toucan

12-23-2007, 8:26 PM

Null its legally protected as a religion, therefore putting it in the same realm as christianity. Furthermore a founder of your movement, John Dewey, called it a new type of religion, and referred to it as a religious movement. I don't see why you and Darksoul are trying to refute this, other than it might undermine atheisms image. But I digress, atheism, at least the way you and darksoul follow it, is allot like catholicism, with Dawkins as its pope, and science its koran, or bible, or what have you.
So if you are an atheist, you atomically follow this religion? Even if you have never heard of it or had the slightest idea of it's existence.

Can you be a Christian if you have never heard of Christianity, Jesus or any of the stories of the bible?

It's not really the same thing, is it?

Gunmonk

12-23-2007, 8:42 PM

So if you are an atheist, you atomically follow this religion? Even if you have never heard of it or had the slightest idea of it's existence.

Meaning???

Can you be a Christian if you have never heard of Christianity, Jesus or any of the stories of the bible?

It's not really the same thing, is it?

Ummm funny you should ask that... no you cant. furthermore, I should say that your question only goes to refute your attempted comparison.

Dark_Soul74

12-23-2007, 8:54 PM

For several posts now, you've been arguing that athiests are, essentially, total jerks for having a unified theory of "there's no god, eff you douchebags." I give you a valid counterpoint about Christianity being far far far worse in that category, and you ignore it. proto and I both also bring up the valid point that athiesm is far less organized as a system of beliefs than any Christian religion, even Christianity as a whole. You then say that because it is legally compared to religion, it is therefore a strict system of beliefs that all of its members adhere and therefore every single athiest is a self-righteous douchebag that is pretentious and overly self-assured about how they feel that god doesn't exist. I'm not going to bother with this line of questioning anymore. It's useless to argue against someone who ignores every single point but ones they have "proof" against, especially when the "proof" contradicts itself.

The real problem is that "specialtyinterests.net" is a relatively unknown website with a clear bias towards Christian viewpoints. It offers speculative "scientific" information with little to no proof. An argument is an argument, and can be copied from any source so long as it makes logical sense, but evidence is something that actually has to be reliable to be accepted. Meanwhile, you go off on some random tangent about how the big bang is a hoax because you can't make the same leap of faith for the creation of matter and time, that you seem to do without any trouble for a god, matter, and time.

As for oil:
Most geologists view crude oil and natural gas as the product of compression and heating of ancient organic materials over geological time. Oil is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have been settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. Terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tend to form coal. Over geological time this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the organic matter to chemically change during diagenesis, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.

In layman's terms, oil is formed