You dodged the what if YOU are wrong part.(I might be wrong about that,but I don't see your answer per say against sorry if it's just me) That being said lets not assume I'm ignorant of other religions. I tend to know more than I care to about many other religions. To the extent that I'm wrong and there is not God and my life ends, whats the problem? I lived my life acording to what I believed to be true, is there any reason for me to have regrets at that point. (for that matter if I was wrong then that's then end and I'd stop existing and I'd never know, again not a big deal)
How did I dodge that? Read up on Pascal's Wager. The question you posited is very old and it has been laid to rest long ago. I gave you a brief summary of the compelling arguments against it's proposition.
Well, according to the dogma of most religions, believing in other religions and following their practices is forbidden. If you assume all that stuff is simply wrong, you're already calling into question the truth of your own religion. If you don't assume that stuff is wrong, you're just as likely as me (or anyone else) to have missed the mark and you'll be in one of the 9000+ hells that have been concocted since the beginning of religious traditions.
The proposition I posed to you was not "what if I'm right." (I'm not claiming to know for sure if there is or isn't an afterlife) I posed to you "what if you're wrong," in the context that another religion might be right and you would end up in their hell for worshiping the false-god Jehova.
Religion does not require you to preclude any possible doubt, nor does faith. That is too much of an absolutist view of the whole thing. Of course with the lack of any proof, I have doubt that God exists, but that doesn't prevent me from having faith that God exists. Logical thought and religious faith can coexist in the same being.
Except you need to act illogically to have faith and believe in something in spite of logically having no evidence to suppose that thing to exist in the first place. You must believe to have faith. You must have faith to be religious. If you don't believe in the dogma then you are not a member of that religion any more than I am.
Logical thoughts and faith can coexist in the same person's head, but that doesn't mean that they're compatable. Faith is necessarily an abolition of rational thinking. Rational thinking is necessarily an abolition of faith.
Secondly, the omnipotent force of goodness thing... I really must take issue with that in the most polite way possible. Religion has been anything but an omnipotent force for goodness in this world. That isn't to say it hasn't done good things, because it has, but there's no reason to suppose it keeps the good going or that people need it in their lives.
I think a good many people are conditioned, from birth, to feel that they need it. But I certainly don't think they do naturally. I would condemn anyone who set about forbidding religion, but i'm equally caustic to the idea that we need to continue hammering those concepts home to children. Let them decide if they want to adopt a belief system or which one they want to adopt.
On the second point.
I'm talking specifically about the basic concept of the "God" figure, not the cult of religion. And even so, religion itself is not the problem, the problem is the power that religious leaders handle. Power corrupts people, yada yada.
In the end, people need to believe in stuff. when things gets nasty in life, people protects itself with different shields. Some poeple uses hobbies, some poeple stare at the stars inquiring for answers, some poeple pray to gods. Those who dont get to find a shield, ends up in the final line of defence. which is composed of heavy mental disorders. When mind can't handle the stuff, it shuts down.
Anyway, my family is as religious as it can be, and I was given the chance to choose my own path. So, I'm not religious, but I understand why some poeple need of it.
On the second point.
I'm talking specifically about the basic concept of the "God" figure, not the cult of religion. And even so, religion itself is not the problem, the problem is the power that religious leaders handle. Power corrupts people, yada yada.
Well I definitely agree with this. The problem is that's where most of those people get their god concepts from and how to pray to them or appease them in some way. I'm sure you can see the catch-22 there.
In the end, people need to believe in stuff. when things gets nasty in life, people protects itself with different shields. Some poeple uses hobbies, some poeple stare at the stars inquiring for answers, some poeple pray to gods. Those who dont get to find a shield, ends up in the final line of defence. which is composed of heavy mental disorders. When mind can't handle the stuff, it shuts down.
In so far as having some kind of unfounded but comforting idea goes, so long as it is personal and not in conflict with anyone else, I don't see the problem with it. I don't need it and I would not suggest that anyone needs it, but if they say they want it, then they should feel free to pray to whatever they want. I'm not against that. I'm simply calling into question the larger concepts being evoked in prayer. Prayer is a rather banal thing compared to what causes most religions' rubber to meet the road. I don't know of many hobbies that include murdering cartoonists, censoring science textbooks, or shooting doctors for performing abortions.
My biggest quaml is that people view the personal introspective aspect of meditation or prayer as necessarily linked with belief in some man-made god construct that has other, more retrograde, side-effects. I can (and have) meditated for hours on end and did this in the absence of any kind of supernatural belief. Any benefit one can get from rote introspection can be achieved without the harmful side-effects of dogma.
Anyway, my family is as religious as it can be, and I was given the chance to choose my own path. So, I'm not religious, but I understand why some poeple need of it.
You're quite fortunate and I appreciate your point of view.
I would question the standard for death in this case. Your referring to the death of the body for a moment, but what of the mind and spirit.
Your "mind" is just chemicals and electric impulses in your body. And your mind is dead the moment your physical shell stops to produce the chemicals/electricity it needs to maintain its functions...it needs to stop for some time, your brain wont take dmg the moment the organs stop to work but if you exceed the timelimit your "mind" dies.
The "spirit" part is a little tricky... because thats just an other concept like god. You cant prove the existence of a spirit so you cant say what happes to it (if it exists) after your physical shell is dead.
I would argue that your take on the mind is limited. What if the mind is simply a medium for what is actually the mind. There are many case of people with brain damage being able to under stand whats going on around them but not be able to articulate or communicate. This would be a clear indication that the medium for the mind is the problem and not the mind it's self. The "understood" concept of what is the mind to most people with just the physical brain.
On the note of the spirit I don't have much to say on the matter. Because it's not so clear of an arguable topic and rather than make up ideas I'll leave it be.
There are many case of people with brain damage being able to under stand whats going on around them but not be able to articulate or communicate. This would be a clear indication that the medium for the mind is the problem and not the mind it's self. The "understood" concept of what is the mind to most people with just the physical brain.
That depends on which part of the brain is damaged. Someone who is paralyzed due to damaged nerves in one part of the brain may still retain their same thought patterns, same judgements, same emotional self. Someone who has a fully functional body may have a damaged brain and come out a completely diffirent person, with all new behaviors, emotional reactions, and thought patterns.
You're driving at the concept of consciousness and supposing it to be absolutely divorced from the physical brain (ala descartes), but there's no reason to make such a supposition any more than there is to suppose that we absolutely know how the brain works to the last detail (we don't).
On the note of the spirit I don't have much to say on the matter. Because it's not so clear of an arguable topic and rather than make up ideas I'll leave it be.
I'm glad you realize that it's a made up idea to explain something we just don't understand in perfect detail.
For those that are searching about the meaning of life, God, etc: here are 2 good books to get started. (besides the Bible)
I'm just curious as to why those books (including the bible) are a better source of knowledge about life and the universe than say, a biology, chemistry, or physics book. Hell, there are a lot of fiction and creative non-fiction novels that would qualify too. Any book making truth claims about the universe, even in the context of general meaning, should be put to the same criticism as their scientific counterparts.
edit: Oh - and Christians should not be afraid or shy away from science in any branch. God created it to show his magnificence! The more we discover about how complex everything is, the more we should be in awe. I personally love astronomy in particular.
Glad to hear you say that, but if there were a God that created the universe to show off then he also shows off by pestilence, vulcanism, and other natural disasters. If I knew such a god to exist, I would only be in awe of just how much of an asshole it was. I love astronomy too, but It doesn't put me in awe of a mysterious being. It puts me in awe of the astrological things i'm viewing. The universe that many religious people like to derride as incomplete.
From the summaries of the 2 books that I posted, it says that the author interviews professionals and experts in scientific fields for the most up to date evidence that is out there. If you're asking us to prove that there is a god, the "The Case for a Creator" book is something that will meet that need. Check it out before you dismiss it. (Dr. Dino has some compelling evidence on his site as well)
(Again, this is why I tend not to debate on the internet, as people tend to want to debate more than seek truth - no offense intended, just an observation. If all you guys want to do is debate, have at it )
The reason why many textbooks make bad proof for the existence of a god, is because the author's are too close-minded to admit it could be a possibility in the first place. So all of their research is already bent towards that worldview. Granted, you could just as easily say I'm close minded for making everything fit my worldview... but when one steps back and examines the evidence we do have, it takes a LOT more faith to believe there is no creator and the universe was all random chance... The Biblical explanation for everything makes a lot more sense to me logically and scientifically. Especially the creation vs evolution debate. (The chicken was before the egg )
In response to a god and natural disasters: you are making the assumption that this god caused and wanted those disasters to happen. When you read the Bible, you see that God gave mankind a free will, choice and dominion over this earth that He created. When Adam sinned (yes Adam - the Bible makes it clear in Romans 5 that it was the sin of Adam that caused the fall of mankind, not Eve) it caused a spiritual shockwave of death and disruption throughout the earth. Thorns, death and disease came into being through sin - it was never God's will for there to be death and destruction. This doesn't mean He lost control - this just means He wanted us to be able to choose Him or not. He is in control overall, and you can see the redemption story throughout history. We are told in Daniel and Revelation that the end will culminate with a worldwide economic collapse, the rise of a one world government and currency, and ultimately the 2nd return of Jesus. I don't know if this will happen in our lifetime or not, but it certainly seems close...
To show that God doesn't want disease and sickness, look at the life of Jesus and all of the healing miracles he performed. Jesus was the physical embodiment of God and His will on Earth. If God wanted people to be sick, then Jesus would have been acting in direct opposition to that goal. It even continued as the disciples and others healed after Jesus rose to heaven! If you want something more recent, look at any medical miracle that defies science. There are plenty of examples of those out there.
In response to being in awe of the astronomical things: I choose to be in awe of the Creator when observing the creation. You choose to be in awe of the creation and deny the existence of the Creator. Either way, there's some pretty amazing stuff out there, check out Louie Giglio's sermon talking about the vastness of the universe. Very cool stuff. All I can do is give you the information though, it's your choice to check it out.
On the note of the spirit I don't have much to say on the matter. Because it's not so clear of an arguable topic and rather than make up ideas I'll leave it be.
I'm glad you realize that it's a made up idea to explain something we just don't understand in perfect detail.
From my understanding based on the Bible: we are all made up of body, soul, and spirit. Our body is our physical shell tied to this earth, our soul is 'us' (mind, will, emotions), and our spirit is our eternal being (once created).
On the note of the spirit I don't have much to say on the matter. Because it's not so clear of an arguable topic and rather than make up ideas I'll leave it be.
I'm glad you realize that it's a made up idea to explain something we just don't understand in perfect detail.
From my understanding based on the Bible: we are all made up of body, soul, and spirit. Our body is our physical shell tied to this earth, our soul is 'us' (mind, will, emotions), and our spirit is our eternal being (once created).
I'm confused. Were you lying about the made up idea admission or are you granting me that the bible is also made up ideas (in most cases plagarized from other made up ideas)?
From the summaries of the 2 books that I posted, it says that the author interviews professionals and experts in scientific fields for the most up to date evidence that is out there. If you're asking us to prove that there is a god, the "The Case for a Creator" book is something that will meet that need. Check it out before you dismiss it. (Dr. Dino has some compelling evidence on his site as well)
(Again, this is why I tend not to debate on the internet, as people tend to want to debate more than seek truth - no offense intended, just an observation. If all you guys want to do is debate, have at it )
I didn't ask you for a summary. I asked you why they were a greater authority than the scientists who don't make any such claims. If you think that's not seeking truth, then you have a diffirent definition of truth than I do. I don't simply roll over and take my truth like a suppository. That would be faith, not truth.
The reason why many textbooks make bad proof for the existence of a god, is because the author's are too close-minded to admit it could be a possibility in the first place. So all of their research is already bent towards that worldview. Granted, you could just as easily say I'm close minded for making everything fit my worldview... but when one steps back and examines the evidence we do have, it takes a LOT more faith to believe there is no creator and the universe was all random chance... The Biblical explanation for everything makes a lot more sense to me logically and scientifically. Especially the creation vs evolution debate. (The chicken was before the egg )
What a load of bullshit. You think that everyone who ever took enough science classes to become a professor necessarily rejects any concept of god? On the contrary, I know many professors and scientists who would LOVE to find evidence for a loving god. They, like me, have not seen it. That's why they are not in support of your position. They aren't closed minded at all. In-fact they are the most open-minded people I know.
In response to a god and natural disasters: you are making the assumption that this god caused and wanted those disasters to happen. When you read the Bible, you see that God gave mankind a free will, choice and dominion over this earth that He created. When Adam sinned (yes Adam - the Bible makes it clear in Romans 5 that it was the sin of Adam that caused the fall of mankind, not Eve) it caused a spiritual shockwave of death and disruption throughout the earth. Thorns, death and disease came into being through sin - it was never God's will for there to be death and destruction. This doesn't mean He lost control - this just means He wanted us to be able to choose Him or not. He is in control overall, and you can see the redemption story throughout history. We are told in Daniel and Revelation that the end will culminate with a worldwide economic collapse, the rise of a one world government and currency, and ultimately the 2nd return of Jesus. I don't know if this will happen in our lifetime or not, but it certainly seems close...
Mankind's free-will causes natural disasters? You should definitely research geology and meteorology. And if your god wanted everyone to choose him, i'm wondering why there are still remote tribes on several continents and islands who have never heard of him? I'm not touching that lunacy about endtimes.
To show that God doesn't want disease and sickness, look at the life of Jesus and all of the healing miracles he performed. Jesus was the physical embodiment of God and His will on Earth. If God wanted people to be sick, then Jesus would have been acting in direct opposition to that goal. It even continued as the disciples and others healed after Jesus rose to heaven! If you want something more recent, look at any medical miracle that defies science. There are plenty of examples of those out there.
How about Job? Oh any medical miracle? Can you find me one of those that's been empirically proven to be miraculous? And by that I mean, divine in origin, not miraculous in the meaning that people would use (ie. not explicable or just coincidental).
In response to being in awe of the astronomical things: I choose to be in awe of the Creator when observing the creation. You choose to be in awe of the creation and deny the existence of the Creator. Either way, there's some pretty amazing stuff out there, check out Louie Giglio's sermon talking about the vastness of the universe. Very cool stuff. All I can do is give you the information though, it's your choice to check it out.
Yeah, too bad we don't know if there is a creator or not or that the universe even necessarily needs one. We CERTAINLY do not have evidence for this specific christian god concept. Just so we're clear: I'm in awe of the universe and want to know more about it. You are in awe of a man-made idea that belittles that universe and refuse to know more about it. Who is not seeking truth?
From the summaries of the 2 books that I posted, it says that the author interviews professionals and experts in scientific fields for the most up to date evidence that is out there. If you're asking us to prove that there is a god, the "The Case for a Creator" book is something that will meet that need. Check it out before you dismiss it. (Dr. Dino has some compelling evidence on his site as well)
(Again, this is why I tend not to debate on the internet, as people tend to want to debate more than seek truth - no offense intended, just an observation. If all you guys want to do is debate, have at it )
I didn't ask you for a summary. I asked you why they were a greater authority than the scientists who don't make any such claims. If you think that's not seeking truth, then you have a diffirent definition of truth than I do. I don't simply roll over and take my truth like a suppository. That would be faith, not truth.
I meant based on the summaries I pasted - the scientists are peers with differing points of view on the same evidence. They have the same credentials as those who don't make such claims - they just have a different outcome based on the evidence.
The reason why many textbooks make bad proof for the existence of a god, is because the author's are too close-minded to admit it could be a possibility in the first place. So all of their research is already bent towards that worldview. Granted, you could just as easily say I'm close minded for making everything fit my worldview... but when one steps back and examines the evidence we do have, it takes a LOT more faith to believe there is no creator and the universe was all random chance... The Biblical explanation for everything makes a lot more sense to me logically and scientifically. Especially the creation vs evolution debate. (The chicken was before the egg )
What a load of bullshit. You think that everyone who ever took enough science classes to become a professor necessarily rejects any concept of god? On the contrary, I know many professors and scientists who would LOVE to find evidence for a loving god. They, like me, have not seen it. That's why they are not in support of your position. They aren't closed minded at all. In-fact they are the most open-minded people I know.
I didn't say every science professor. I'm just saying it wouldn't be the first time someone falsified information in textbooks.
If people haven't found evidence of a loving god, that could just means the Christians that they run into aren't being good ambassadors of Christ. I know I mess up a lot still and probably give a bad impression sometimes... Like that cheesy bumper sticker: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. (Even though everyone is forgiven, people just haven't let go of their burdens!)
In response to a god and natural disasters: you are making the assumption that this god caused and wanted those disasters to happen. When you read the Bible, you see that God gave mankind a free will, choice and dominion over this earth that He created. When Adam sinned (yes Adam - the Bible makes it clear in Romans 5 that it was the sin of Adam that caused the fall of mankind, not Eve) it caused a spiritual shockwave of death and disruption throughout the earth. Thorns, death and disease came into being through sin - it was never God's will for there to be death and destruction. This doesn't mean He lost control - this just means He wanted us to be able to choose Him or not. He is in control overall, and you can see the redemption story throughout history. We are told in Daniel and Revelation that the end will culminate with a worldwide economic collapse, the rise of a one world government and currency, and ultimately the 2nd return of Jesus. I don't know if this will happen in our lifetime or not, but it certainly seems close...
Mankind's free-will causes natural disasters? You should definitely research geology and meteorology. And if your god wanted everyone to choose him, i'm wondering why there are still remote tribes on several continents and islands who have never heard of him? I'm not touching that lunacy about endtimes.
No, that's not what I said. I said that man's free will caused sin to enter the world, which then set things in motion. I do believe there are natural disasters - hence why they're called natural. I'm just saying that they were never desired by God. (In light of that though - I do believe in a spiritual realm which can cause things to happen in the physical realm using physical means that can't be proven with only science)
To show that God doesn't want disease and sickness, look at the life of Jesus and all of the healing miracles he performed. Jesus was the physical embodiment of God and His will on Earth. If God wanted people to be sick, then Jesus would have been acting in direct opposition to that goal. It even continued as the disciples and others healed after Jesus rose to heaven! If you want something more recent, look at any medical miracle that defies science. There are plenty of examples of those out there.
How about Job? Oh any medical miracle? Can you find me one of those that's been empirically proven to be miraculous? And by that I mean, divine in origin, not miraculous in the meaning that people would use (ie. not explicable or just coincidental).
Job was healed if you finish the book. And the origin of those diseases? The devil, not God. And still - Jesus healed everyone that came to Him! Again though, you want me to prove the spiritual with the physical; sadly it can't happen in the way you're expecting it to.
In response to being in awe of the astronomical things: I choose to be in awe of the Creator when observing the creation. You choose to be in awe of the creation and deny the existence of the Creator. Either way, there's some pretty amazing stuff out there, check out Louie Giglio's sermon talking about the vastness of the universe. Very cool stuff. All I can do is give you the information though, it's your choice to check it out.
Yeah, too bad we don't know if there is a creator or not or that the universe even necessarily needs one. We CERTAINLY do not have evidence for this specific christian god concept. Just so we're clear: I'm in awe of the universe and want to know more about it. You are in awe of a man-made idea that belittles that universe and refuse to know more about it. Who is not seeking truth?
As always, the debate stems from two different worldviews which at it's core is the validity and source of the Bible. I believe that the Bible was written by numerous authors inspired by God. So no, it is not a man-made idea that I believe in - it's God-made. The more I study the Bible, the more everything makes sense. And I don't refuse to know more about the universe - as I said I'm amazed the more we find out about it because of how awesome it all is!
I highly encourage you again to check out any of those links I have posted, especially the Louie Giglio youtube series.
I meant based on the summaries I pasted - the scientists are peers with differing points of view on the same evidence. They have the same credentials as those who don't make such claims - they just have a different outcome based on the evidence.
They do not have the same cedentials and they're not peer reviewed scientific articles. Therefor I have no reason to find them in any way a valid source of rational information. Why do you find these authors, independant from scrutiny, to be on par with sceince which must be constantly tested and scrutinized?
I didn't say every science professor. I'm just saying it wouldn't be the first time someone falsified information in textbooks.
If people haven't found evidence of a loving god, that could just means the Christians that they run into aren't being good ambassadors of Christ. I know I mess up a lot still and probably give a bad impression sometimes... Like that cheesy bumper sticker: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. (Even though everyone is forgiven, people just haven't let go of their burdens!)
As someone who's contributed to more than one textbook, i'll thank you to just drop the conspiracy theory. We're out to teach the evidence, not spread our worldview (that's what the religious folks do). While i'm thrilled to hear that Christians are supposed to act in a loving manner (you need to start voting socialist if you're really into Jesus' message, imo), you should realize as well as I do that adherence to the dogma doesn't make the dogma evidential. In other words, that's just not evidence.
No, that's not what I said. I said that man's free will caused sin to enter the world, which then set things in motion. I do believe there are natural disasters - hence why they're called natural. I'm just saying that they were never desired by God. (In light of that though - I do believe in a spiritual realm which can cause things to happen in the physical realm using physical means that can't be proven with only science)
Which means sin, which is caused by people, causes disasters. That is equally wrong. And if you don't believe in natural disasters then you're desperately trying to fight science with ignorance. Natural disasters are absolutely evident and we can do a good job of explaining them and now predict them more accurately (by observing nature through the lense of science)
Job was healed if you finish the book. And the origin of those diseases? The devil, not God. And still - Jesus healed everyone that came to Him! Again though, you want me to prove the spiritual with the physical; sadly it can't happen in the way you're expecting it to.
Job's family was massacred and he was given a new one, as though the ties that bind a man to his family were so useless that it could simply be replaced. Keep in mind that Job was tormented for no other reason than God wanted to see if he could. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. That story is no more likely to be true than anything you might want to read out of Ovid's Metamorphoses. You can't say the spiritual even exists, much less that it interacts with the only thing we know about (the physical universe).
As always, the debate stems from two different worldviews which at it's core is the validity and source of the Bible. I believe that the Bible was written by numerous authors inspired by God. So no, it is not a man-made idea that I believe in - it's God-made. The more I study the Bible, the more everything makes sense. And I don't refuse to know more about the universe - as I said I'm amazed the more we find out about it because of how awesome it all is!
It's evidently written by men. What isn't evident is that there is any god to inspire or even if there were, that he did inspire anyone writing it. The more you continue to study the bible instead of the world around you. The more you're depriving your rational brain of oxygen. You've made the results VERY clear in your talk about natural disasters. You have a very loose grip on reality and it's HEAVILY weighted on by these articles of your dogma without the slightest kernal of truth to justify it's place atop your psyche.
As I said, I want to find out more about the universe. You want to find out more about the man-made god concept. And that, is a shame. Because of those two things, right now, we can only say that one exists: the universe. Let go of the myths that are holding you back. Become a real "seeker," of knowledge instead of taking your facts from centuries of man-made social construction.
I assume that everyone atheistic believes we are a product of random chance brought about by millions of years of evolution. This is something that is completely unproven and in fact requires just as much faith as belief in a deity. There are 6 types of evolution:
Cosmic Evolution: the origin of time, space, matter, big ban, etc.
Chemical Evolution: higher elements evolving from hydrogen
Stellar and Planetary Evolution: creation of stars/planets
Organic Evolution: life out of non-living materiel (ie, it rained on the rocks for millions of years/lightning/heat/pressure/whatever and now you have primordeal soup)
Macroevolution: all forms of life on the planet share a common ancestry
Microevolution: creatures reproduce according to their kind
Of these six, only one is supported by evidence. The other are supported by theory and faith.
There is no scientific proof the first 5 exist. Remember for something to be scientific fact it has to be testableobservableand repeatable.
My faith in God is no less religious than your (this is a generality, not directed at a specific person) faith in "science."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“One thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse”
--Jack Handy
Let's first agree that the bible is historically accurate. Remember that other historical texts validate the bible and also that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. (I think Nelson [Nestor?] Glueck [Gluek?] said that last part). We know that Moses lived and roughly when he lived in history. Now, God talks to Moses and tells him what animals they are allowed to eat:
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.
4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
This is actually a complete list. There are no other animals in the world that fulfil these descriptions. We can either conclude that a) Moses was well traveled and cataloged every animal he could find, or somebody told him (ie GOD).
edit: yes, I understand this does not prove anything. Just something to think about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“One thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse”
--Jack Handy
Let's first agree that the bible is historically accurate. Remember that other historical texts validate the bible and also that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. (I think Nelson [Nestor?] Glueck [Gluek?] said that last part). We know that Moses lived and roughly when he lived in history. Now, God talks to Moses and tells him what animals they are allowed to eat:
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.
4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
This is actually a complete list. There are no other animals in the world that fulfil these descriptions. We can either conclude that a) Moses was well traveled and cataloged every animal he could find, or somebody told him (ie GOD).
edit: yes, I understand this does not prove anything. Just something to think about.
No sorry this is BIG logical fallacy right there.
This is just a condition about every species that leads to an arbitrary action. There is no need to know all species. This is only a condition and then you can or can't eat.
Let's say I only know the cat,pig,dog species, "You can only eat animals with paws but a small snout"
The pig cannot be eaten because it has no claw nor paws
The dog cannot be eaten because it has paws but a long snout
And the list can go on and on.
Still I don't know every species.
You see what I mean ? It's only a If "....." then "...." condition. Where the then action is completly arbitrary "eat or not eat". It is not the same as If a mushroom is this color then it is poisonous.
There the then action is not arbitrary, it is either poisonous or it isn't, to know this you are required to know every mushrooms. If moses was on mushrooms then I would have believed it was intriguing but not that.
i can see like 70 animals in wiki, and 7 in your list
[/quote]
Sorry, I guess I could post the entire chapter where all 70 animals are listed, but I didn't think people would want to read all that. It's Leviticus 11 if you want to read it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“One thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse”
--Jack Handy
Don't forget Atheism is for some a form of religion which some people have become fanatics of, kinda ironic I think.
I think you mis-understand the atheist position. There is no evidence, no proof, no reason to believe in any god that has ever been described. Thus we are atheist in terms of all of those gods. That doesn't exclude the possibility that something that could later be described as "god," exists. It demands that "god(s)," be evident before we conclude it/them to exist, just like anything else.
The diffirence between an atheist and an agnostic isn't rigidity or fanatacism. The only diffirence as far as I can tell is that an agnostic really doesn't care to the point where the question is meaningless (I count that a little more extreme than atheism to be honest), whereas the atheist is willing to answer the question "I don't know and as far as we can tell, there isn't any such thing."
Never thought i'd see high-horse talk from an agnostic about atheism, but I suppose there's a first time for everything.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Also I agree atheism and agnosticism sometimes overlap and then there are different view inside these beliefs.
And I don't misunderstand your position , your own, because as far as I know you don't speak for the whole world.
On a side note, about my sentence regarding atheists being fanatists I knew I would be quoted even if I have written "SOME". because that is true to me, there are fanatic atheist, that believe in the religion of no god and are as virulent as christian fanatics to make other believe there is no god, to reject any kind of religious person as a dumb nut and spit on anything related.
I'm not aiming this to anyone in particular, I'm just trying to share some light on what I think is the irony (one of many) of the 20/21th century, this new religion.
The overarching point I'm making is that there are dozens (hundreds?) of species that have a divided hoof, scattered through 6 continents. There are dozens (hundreds?) of animals that chew the cud, again scattered through 6 continents. Of these hundreds of species, there are only 3 animals (camel, hyrax, rabbit) that chew cud but don't have a split hoof. There is only 1 family of animals in the world that has a split hoof, but doesn't chew cud.
I think the fact that somebody from over 3 thousand years ago knew that is pretty incredible. And it seems logical to me that you could not travel enough on your donkey at that point in history to compile that list.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“One thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse”
--Jack Handy
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How did I dodge that? Read up on Pascal's Wager. The question you posited is very old and it has been laid to rest long ago. I gave you a brief summary of the compelling arguments against it's proposition.
Well, according to the dogma of most religions, believing in other religions and following their practices is forbidden. If you assume all that stuff is simply wrong, you're already calling into question the truth of your own religion. If you don't assume that stuff is wrong, you're just as likely as me (or anyone else) to have missed the mark and you'll be in one of the 9000+ hells that have been concocted since the beginning of religious traditions.
The proposition I posed to you was not "what if I'm right." (I'm not claiming to know for sure if there is or isn't an afterlife) I posed to you "what if you're wrong," in the context that another religion might be right and you would end up in their hell for worshiping the false-god Jehova.
Except you need to act illogically to have faith and believe in something in spite of logically having no evidence to suppose that thing to exist in the first place. You must believe to have faith. You must have faith to be religious. If you don't believe in the dogma then you are not a member of that religion any more than I am.
Logical thoughts and faith can coexist in the same person's head, but that doesn't mean that they're compatable. Faith is necessarily an abolition of rational thinking. Rational thinking is necessarily an abolition of faith.
On the second point.
I'm talking specifically about the basic concept of the "God" figure, not the cult of religion. And even so, religion itself is not the problem, the problem is the power that religious leaders handle. Power corrupts people, yada yada.
In the end, people need to believe in stuff. when things gets nasty in life, people protects itself with different shields. Some poeple uses hobbies, some poeple stare at the stars inquiring for answers, some poeple pray to gods. Those who dont get to find a shield, ends up in the final line of defence. which is composed of heavy mental disorders. When mind can't handle the stuff, it shuts down.
Anyway, my family is as religious as it can be, and I was given the chance to choose my own path. So, I'm not religious, but I understand why some poeple need of it.
Well I definitely agree with this. The problem is that's where most of those people get their god concepts from and how to pray to them or appease them in some way. I'm sure you can see the catch-22 there.
In so far as having some kind of unfounded but comforting idea goes, so long as it is personal and not in conflict with anyone else, I don't see the problem with it. I don't need it and I would not suggest that anyone needs it, but if they say they want it, then they should feel free to pray to whatever they want. I'm not against that. I'm simply calling into question the larger concepts being evoked in prayer. Prayer is a rather banal thing compared to what causes most religions' rubber to meet the road. I don't know of many hobbies that include murdering cartoonists, censoring science textbooks, or shooting doctors for performing abortions.
My biggest quaml is that people view the personal introspective aspect of meditation or prayer as necessarily linked with belief in some man-made god construct that has other, more retrograde, side-effects. I can (and have) meditated for hours on end and did this in the absence of any kind of supernatural belief. Any benefit one can get from rote introspection can be achieved without the harmful side-effects of dogma.
You're quite fortunate and I appreciate your point of view.
This.
I would argue that your take on the mind is limited. What if the mind is simply a medium for what is actually the mind. There are many case of people with brain damage being able to under stand whats going on around them but not be able to articulate or communicate. This would be a clear indication that the medium for the mind is the problem and not the mind it's self. The "understood" concept of what is the mind to most people with just the physical brain.
On the note of the spirit I don't have much to say on the matter. Because it's not so clear of an arguable topic and rather than make up ideas I'll leave it be.
That depends on which part of the brain is damaged. Someone who is paralyzed due to damaged nerves in one part of the brain may still retain their same thought patterns, same judgements, same emotional self. Someone who has a fully functional body may have a damaged brain and come out a completely diffirent person, with all new behaviors, emotional reactions, and thought patterns.
You're driving at the concept of consciousness and supposing it to be absolutely divorced from the physical brain (ala descartes), but there's no reason to make such a supposition any more than there is to suppose that we absolutely know how the brain works to the last detail (we don't).
I'm glad you realize that it's a made up idea to explain something we just don't understand in perfect detail.
From the summaries of the 2 books that I posted, it says that the author interviews professionals and experts in scientific fields for the most up to date evidence that is out there. If you're asking us to prove that there is a god, the "The Case for a Creator" book is something that will meet that need. Check it out before you dismiss it. (Dr. Dino has some compelling evidence on his site as well)
(Again, this is why I tend not to debate on the internet, as people tend to want to debate more than seek truth - no offense intended, just an observation. If all you guys want to do is debate, have at it )
The reason why many textbooks make bad proof for the existence of a god, is because the author's are too close-minded to admit it could be a possibility in the first place. So all of their research is already bent towards that worldview. Granted, you could just as easily say I'm close minded for making everything fit my worldview... but when one steps back and examines the evidence we do have, it takes a LOT more faith to believe there is no creator and the universe was all random chance... The Biblical explanation for everything makes a lot more sense to me logically and scientifically. Especially the creation vs evolution debate. (The chicken was before the egg )
In response to a god and natural disasters: you are making the assumption that this god caused and wanted those disasters to happen. When you read the Bible, you see that God gave mankind a free will, choice and dominion over this earth that He created. When Adam sinned (yes Adam - the Bible makes it clear in Romans 5 that it was the sin of Adam that caused the fall of mankind, not Eve) it caused a spiritual shockwave of death and disruption throughout the earth. Thorns, death and disease came into being through sin - it was never God's will for there to be death and destruction. This doesn't mean He lost control - this just means He wanted us to be able to choose Him or not. He is in control overall, and you can see the redemption story throughout history. We are told in Daniel and Revelation that the end will culminate with a worldwide economic collapse, the rise of a one world government and currency, and ultimately the 2nd return of Jesus. I don't know if this will happen in our lifetime or not, but it certainly seems close...
To show that God doesn't want disease and sickness, look at the life of Jesus and all of the healing miracles he performed. Jesus was the physical embodiment of God and His will on Earth. If God wanted people to be sick, then Jesus would have been acting in direct opposition to that goal. It even continued as the disciples and others healed after Jesus rose to heaven! If you want something more recent, look at any medical miracle that defies science. There are plenty of examples of those out there.
In response to being in awe of the astronomical things: I choose to be in awe of the Creator when observing the creation. You choose to be in awe of the creation and deny the existence of the Creator. Either way, there's some pretty amazing stuff out there, check out Louie Giglio's sermon talking about the vastness of the universe. Very cool stuff. All I can do is give you the information though, it's your choice to check it out.
Cheers!
From my understanding based on the Bible: we are all made up of body, soul, and spirit. Our body is our physical shell tied to this earth, our soul is 'us' (mind, will, emotions), and our spirit is our eternal being (once created).
I'm confused. Were you lying about the made up idea admission or are you granting me that the bible is also made up ideas (in most cases plagarized from other made up ideas)?
I didn't ask you for a summary. I asked you why they were a greater authority than the scientists who don't make any such claims. If you think that's not seeking truth, then you have a diffirent definition of truth than I do. I don't simply roll over and take my truth like a suppository. That would be faith, not truth.
What a load of bullshit. You think that everyone who ever took enough science classes to become a professor necessarily rejects any concept of god? On the contrary, I know many professors and scientists who would LOVE to find evidence for a loving god. They, like me, have not seen it. That's why they are not in support of your position. They aren't closed minded at all. In-fact they are the most open-minded people I know.
Mankind's free-will causes natural disasters? You should definitely research geology and meteorology. And if your god wanted everyone to choose him, i'm wondering why there are still remote tribes on several continents and islands who have never heard of him? I'm not touching that lunacy about endtimes.
How about Job? Oh any medical miracle? Can you find me one of those that's been empirically proven to be miraculous? And by that I mean, divine in origin, not miraculous in the meaning that people would use (ie. not explicable or just coincidental).
Yeah, too bad we don't know if there is a creator or not or that the universe even necessarily needs one. We CERTAINLY do not have evidence for this specific christian god concept. Just so we're clear: I'm in awe of the universe and want to know more about it. You are in awe of a man-made idea that belittles that universe and refuse to know more about it. Who is not seeking truth?
I meant based on the summaries I pasted - the scientists are peers with differing points of view on the same evidence. They have the same credentials as those who don't make such claims - they just have a different outcome based on the evidence.
I didn't say every science professor. I'm just saying it wouldn't be the first time someone falsified information in textbooks.
If people haven't found evidence of a loving god, that could just means the Christians that they run into aren't being good ambassadors of Christ. I know I mess up a lot still and probably give a bad impression sometimes... Like that cheesy bumper sticker: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. (Even though everyone is forgiven, people just haven't let go of their burdens!)
No, that's not what I said. I said that man's free will caused sin to enter the world, which then set things in motion. I do believe there are natural disasters - hence why they're called natural. I'm just saying that they were never desired by God. (In light of that though - I do believe in a spiritual realm which can cause things to happen in the physical realm using physical means that can't be proven with only science)
Job was healed if you finish the book. And the origin of those diseases? The devil, not God. And still - Jesus healed everyone that came to Him! Again though, you want me to prove the spiritual with the physical; sadly it can't happen in the way you're expecting it to.
As always, the debate stems from two different worldviews which at it's core is the validity and source of the Bible. I believe that the Bible was written by numerous authors inspired by God. So no, it is not a man-made idea that I believe in - it's God-made. The more I study the Bible, the more everything makes sense. And I don't refuse to know more about the universe - as I said I'm amazed the more we find out about it because of how awesome it all is!
I highly encourage you again to check out any of those links I have posted, especially the Louie Giglio youtube series.
Again, hope you find what you're looking for!
They do not have the same cedentials and they're not peer reviewed scientific articles. Therefor I have no reason to find them in any way a valid source of rational information. Why do you find these authors, independant from scrutiny, to be on par with sceince which must be constantly tested and scrutinized?
As someone who's contributed to more than one textbook, i'll thank you to just drop the conspiracy theory. We're out to teach the evidence, not spread our worldview (that's what the religious folks do). While i'm thrilled to hear that Christians are supposed to act in a loving manner (you need to start voting socialist if you're really into Jesus' message, imo), you should realize as well as I do that adherence to the dogma doesn't make the dogma evidential. In other words, that's just not evidence.
Which means sin, which is caused by people, causes disasters. That is equally wrong. And if you don't believe in natural disasters then you're desperately trying to fight science with ignorance. Natural disasters are absolutely evident and we can do a good job of explaining them and now predict them more accurately (by observing nature through the lense of science)
Job's family was massacred and he was given a new one, as though the ties that bind a man to his family were so useless that it could simply be replaced. Keep in mind that Job was tormented for no other reason than God wanted to see if he could. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. That story is no more likely to be true than anything you might want to read out of Ovid's Metamorphoses. You can't say the spiritual even exists, much less that it interacts with the only thing we know about (the physical universe).
It's evidently written by men. What isn't evident is that there is any god to inspire or even if there were, that he did inspire anyone writing it. The more you continue to study the bible instead of the world around you. The more you're depriving your rational brain of oxygen. You've made the results VERY clear in your talk about natural disasters. You have a very loose grip on reality and it's HEAVILY weighted on by these articles of your dogma without the slightest kernal of truth to justify it's place atop your psyche.
As I said, I want to find out more about the universe. You want to find out more about the man-made god concept. And that, is a shame. Because of those two things, right now, we can only say that one exists: the universe. Let go of the myths that are holding you back. Become a real "seeker," of knowledge instead of taking your facts from centuries of man-made social construction.
And it will remain here for future generations to awe over.
If it saves one human mind from retrograde dogmatic practice, it's all worth it.
Cosmic Evolution: the origin of time, space, matter, big ban, etc.
Chemical Evolution: higher elements evolving from hydrogen
Stellar and Planetary Evolution: creation of stars/planets
Organic Evolution: life out of non-living materiel (ie, it rained on the rocks for millions of years/lightning/heat/pressure/whatever and now you have primordeal soup)
Macroevolution: all forms of life on the planet share a common ancestry
Microevolution: creatures reproduce according to their kind
Of these six, only one is supported by evidence. The other are supported by theory and faith.
There is no scientific proof the first 5 exist. Remember for something to be scientific fact it has to be testable observableand repeatable.
My faith in God is no less religious than your (this is a generality, not directed at a specific person) faith in "science."
--Jack Handy
Let's first agree that the bible is historically accurate. Remember that other historical texts validate the bible and also that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. (I think Nelson [Nestor?] Glueck [Gluek?] said that last part). We know that Moses lived and roughly when he lived in history. Now, God talks to Moses and tells him what animals they are allowed to eat:
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.
4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
This is actually a complete list. There are no other animals in the world that fulfil these descriptions. We can either conclude that a) Moses was well traveled and cataloged every animal he could find, or somebody told him (ie GOD).
edit: yes, I understand this does not prove anything. Just something to think about.
--Jack Handy
No sorry this is BIG logical fallacy right there.
This is just a condition about every species that leads to an arbitrary action. There is no need to know all species. This is only a condition and then you can or can't eat.
Let's say I only know the cat,pig,dog species, "You can only eat animals with paws but a small snout"
The pig cannot be eaten because it has no claw nor paws
The dog cannot be eaten because it has paws but a long snout
And the list can go on and on.
Still I don't know every species.
You see what I mean ? It's only a If "....." then "...." condition. Where the then action is completly arbitrary "eat or not eat". It is not the same as If a mushroom is this color then it is poisonous.
There the then action is not arbitrary, it is either poisonous or it isn't, to know this you are required to know every mushrooms. If moses was on mushrooms then I would have believed it was intriguing but not that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_animals
i can see like 70 animals in wiki, and 7 in your list
[/quote]
Sorry, I guess I could post the entire chapter where all 70 animals are listed, but I didn't think people would want to read all that. It's Leviticus 11 if you want to read it.
--Jack Handy
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Also I agree atheism and agnosticism sometimes overlap and then there are different view inside these beliefs.
And I don't misunderstand your position , your own, because as far as I know you don't speak for the whole world.
On a side note, about my sentence regarding atheists being fanatists I knew I would be quoted even if I have written "SOME". because that is true to me, there are fanatic atheist, that believe in the religion of no god and are as virulent as christian fanatics to make other believe there is no god, to reject any kind of religious person as a dumb nut and spit on anything related.
I'm not aiming this to anyone in particular, I'm just trying to share some light on what I think is the irony (one of many) of the 20/21th century, this new religion.
I think the fact that somebody from over 3 thousand years ago knew that is pretty incredible. And it seems logical to me that you could not travel enough on your donkey at that point in history to compile that list.
--Jack Handy