Anyone have a religion?

Printable View

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-06-2005, 09:46 PM
Traitorfish

To start off, have you heard that the Catholic Bishops in Britain have declared that not all of the Bible is 'literrally true'? I know this doesn't actually change the argument, but I just thought it was interesting- Creationism is slipping away so much, that even the Catholic Church is forced to update it's doctrines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

I don't think your outlook is entirely fair- you're basing this opinion on what you think poeple are like, not on any sort of substantial evidence. Besides, by your own standards, unquesting beleif is acceptable, isn't it?

You yourself have talked about how Creationists (or others) believe blindly, in the face of opposing evidence. We all know all too often people don't know why they believe something, on both sides of any topic. Many people believe -- whatever they believe -- even though most others may think it's wrong, or have shown "evidence" to "disprove" it.

Well, many creationists do believe blindly. Many people also have blind beleif in evolutionism. But that's just normal, everyday people. Not scientists.

Quote:

Quote:

OK... manky fossil legs... weird. OK, fine, sometimes things can fossilise quickly. Under certain conditions, not all the time. For example, if you dig up a stone age man, from say, 8,000 years ago, he may not be fossilised. He may simply be a skeleton.

Actually, that only goes to disprove the idea that Evolutionists live by, that something has to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old to fossilize, and that fossilization happens very slowly. It proves that fossilization can happen within a couple dozen years. Something from 8,000 years ago could be fossilized, yes, or it might not -- actually, if it wasn't fossilized, it probably wouldn't make it 8000 years.

Actually, any archaelogist/paeleontologist will say that the time taken for fossillisation differes depending on environment. Besides, proving that it can take just dozens of years, doesn't mean that it always does.

Quote:

Quote:

No suprise, hmm? Well, I've yet to see you produce a credible source, except for that cowboy's leg. And don't say 'Bible'. I meant a scientific source.

I also haven't made such an outrageous claim as to say something like two halves of the exact same bird were found thousands of miles apart. You did. But I'll get to 'em.

Yeah, but that depends on your opinion. I find the idea that the world was made in a week 'outrageous', to say the least.

Quote:

Quote:

Actually, no, it was thought up independantly, by geologists, will evolution was the work of naturalists, biologists and paleontologists. They just happened to fit together. You'll often find that, when two things are true.

Yes, you'll often find evidence interpreted in such a way as to fit one theory, if it can support another theory they're trying to prove. Just like polls and surveys can say anything the maker wants them to say, evidence can be interpreted many ways -- even manipulated to fit Evolutionism. As has been done, many times.

Just as you interpreted the Everest fossils so that they helped proved your idea. Hypocritical, maybe?

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, yes, I agree, a sufficient amount of water cpuld cause the crust to distort. But, the earth does not, nor has it ever, contained that much water. At all. Ever.
Here's some evidence which you would have found, if you'd bothered to actually explore the first link to any depth. It's a kids site. It shouldn't be too hard:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/p.../evidence.html

Nowhere in that site (which I read the first time, thank you) does it say there's never been enough weight from water to distort the crust. Or that there's never been enough water to do it. Any other sources that would claim that?

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It deal with the whole subject, including the point that if it were not for plate tectonics, the whole earth would be worn completely smooth.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I admit the 300,000 miles thing was made up. Don't get worked up about it.

Don't worry about it. I expected it, anyway.

Ah, well. I'll write it down, and in 6,000 years someone will be saying 'It's true because it's in the book!'

If evidence supports it, that's quite possible.

Yes, evidence... Hmm... I'm afraid your all out of that, too.

Quote:

Quote:

Well, you have rascist teachers. That's a problem for the school system, not a flaw in evolutionist theory.

Right. Three different school systems in two states, and all of my teachers were racist? So we have racist teachers (that haven't been sued and fired, that's a dream), instead of a racist theory. Nice try.

Maybe you could blame the poor American school system and it's hugely outdated educational material. Besides, this is a moot point- if my theories rascist, so's your's. There's no real way round that.

Quote:

Quote:

I know that only weirdo extremists use the bible to justify rascism, but the same applies to evolutionary theory- only weirdo extremists, like Hitler, attempt to use evolution to prove their rascist drivel.

There's a difference in manipulating it to be interpreted as being racist, and it being racist from the get-go.

Dammit, I admitted that Nazism is a distortion of evolutionism, what more do you want?
Anyway, you couldn't find a single shred of evidence that suggested that evolutionism was inherently rascist.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

By your standards, nothing has been, or even can be,proven. After all, there could always be some lying or falsification.

Of course things can be -- and have been -- proven. Even to me. Just not Evolutionism. See how that works?

No. Not really- you deny any pro-evolutionary evidence on the basis of 'Well, I can't see how that could happen', rather than real evidence. Not good scientific practice, unfortuanately.

I haven't denied any logical "evidence" that supports Evolutionism. I've shown some to not be "evidence" at all, sure, but if it's there, I won't deny it. Whereas you've denied anything supporting my view.

Yep. You have. And plate tectonics, a theory which in no way contradicts creationism, despite your opinions. You just denie any eveidnce that I put forward.
Hell, you even called it "evidence". That's obvious denial.

Quote:

Quote:

No. I was not. I said we had evidence for it, evidence so strong that it essentially proves evolutionism true. Not definitely, I'll admit it, but it's very good evidence, and the nearest rival theory lags far behind. And that rival is Evolution By Intelligent Design, not creationism, even scientific creationism.

You see it as lagging "far behind" because you haven't seen (read: looked for) evidence of anything else. Supporting something without knowledge of anything else...why am I not surprised.

I see it as lagging far behind because it is barely an advancement on the mysticism of bronze age shepeards.

Quote:

Quote:

OK, fine, but you told me that I beleived in creationism [(Evolutionism)] becasuse it's what I was taught in school. Incorrectly, as it turns out. So, don't "tell me why I believe what I do." Kay?

My mistake. It's what most people are taught in school, which is why they believe it.

Well, like I said, I went to a Catholic School.

Quote:

Quote:

If there was no defect to pass down, then there never should have been any defects. None of this "wires get crossed and BAM" stuff.

You're not making sense. Of course defects will develop, they're defects. That would be like buying a new car and saying hey, it's new and perfect, it should never have anything wrong with it.

Cars are affected by wear and tear. The gentic structure is not .(Except from radiation, but that's really a different thing altogether- it tend to just kill, rather than cause wear and tear.)

Quote:

Quote:

No, anyone who attempts to turn back the clock on scientific thought and attempts to use the ideas of bronze-age nomadic shepeards as a scientific theory is dumb. Well, maybe not dumb, that may be the wrong word... err, let's see, ignorant of the facts, OK?

"Scientific thought"? "Nomadic shepeards[sic]"? Both wrong. And I'm pretty sure that scientists that set out to prove Evolutionism "converting" to Creationism isn't because they're "ignorant of the facts". Not them, anyway. Somehow I doubt that somebody who has devoted their life to learning about our "origins" would be completely ignorant of, well, our origins.

I don't see how. How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge.
And, as I've said before, when the creation story was written, the Israelites were nomadic animal-herders, and not exactly the most adavnced scientific thinkers. It made sense at the time, yeah. But that time was about five or six thousands years ago.

Quote:

Quote:

1.What evidence is there for creationism. And by evidence, for creationism, I don't mean evidence against evolutionism or plate tectonics. I mean for creationism.

Hold up on this.

Quote:

2. Why do scientists beleive in evolutionary theory if it's so obviously false? Why would people with PHDs and doctorates in bio-chemistry be so obviously duped? Care to explain? Or is it just some creationism of the godless scientists, out to destroy God and rule over the earth? You know that's not true, right? Yur not stupid.

Is it really so "stupid" to believe that people are looking for any explanation that doesn't involve God? It's not "so obviously false" to the people that believe it -- you know that yourself. Everything they find supports their theory, whether it actually does or not -- you get my drift?

Quote:

3. How do you explain all the pre-6000Y.A. fossils? I know weve been over the 'fossilisation takes time' thingy, but what about neanderthals, dinosaurs and so on? Surely, if they'd been around 6,000 years, the bible would have made some mention of them, right?

Actually, the Bible does mention dinosaurs, two specifically. It just refers to them as "dragons", as did everybody of that time ... and still today, in certain cultures. Some dinosaurs still exist today -- tribes with prettymuch no contact with the outside world, like in the Amazon or Congo, have stories of them. They've found plesiosaurs washed up on beaches. There are seven "Lochs" in Scotland -- all of them have reported similar sightings. Plus they've been sighted in Lake Champlain in New Hampshire, the Ogopogo in british Columbia, Isa in China, Usa in Japan, and in Bushman and Australian aboriginal rock-carvings. As well as in the Nazca stones. As well as Five-toed llama's painted on Teotihuacan pottery, even though they were supposedly extinct 5 million years ago, and paintings of the Archeopteryx, supposedly extinct about 170 million years ago, in Mayan temples.

As for fossils...there are many types of dating techniques, and none of them are consistent. Any technique can be used to produce, literally, the desired numbers. They've even dated living things to be millions of years old.

Right. Now your using celtic folklore and meso-american mythology as evidence? Wooh... that's not gonna work.

Quote:

Quote:

4. How did so many species survive the flood? There's billions and billions of species that should have died, but all survived. Your not going to say that old Noah, and aging farmer, really had time to gather in all the millions of species of beetle in the rainforest? Even with the help of his three suns.

Alright, let's see here. First of all, the rainforest. Since the Garden of Eden was around where Noah was, he didn't have to go extremely far to gather the animals he needed. It wasn't like there were any animals in the Amazon rainforest, because they hadn't moved there yet. Second. Insects are easy. God ordered Noah to take every creature that had the breath of life in its nostrils. No nostrils, no ticket. Insects can float. They can cling to debris, or burrow in the mud, enough survive.

Err... Eden was in mesopotamia (the Tigris and Euphrates ran out of it, and they're in Iraq, and the Pishon runs into 'Cush', or Kush, modern Ethiopia). The animals of the Brazillian rainforest are nor within reasonable distance of there. Besides, what about scorpions? They can't swim. Some of them live in the Sahara desert. No rivers there.

Quote:

Alright. Here we go. Evidence for Creation, and evidence against Evolutionism.
http://www.origins.org/articles/john...hofdarwin.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohl...ecreation.html
http://www.origins.org/mc/index.html
http://www.origins.org/menus/design.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=14
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx
http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php
The first and last, I'd recommend greatly.

Well, there are a few decent ones, but they're mostly either gibberish or just plain wrong. They seem to think that self-assurance and logic are the same thing... (Not all, remember- some were alright, if misguided).

OK, but one quesion:
Why the Bible?
WHat I mean by this is, why your particular religion? Why is it right? Because you beleive it? Why not Hinduism, or Taoism? Why not old Viking mythology? Frankly, most of them are as valid as Christian creationism.
That's why evolutionism is different- it isn't based on what you happened to believe- it's based on what's actually true.
10-07-2005, 07:45 AM
annslow41

for the record im a christian

born to a christian family
turned away -- rebelled
did my research
christianity made the most sence
now im back

dont get me wrong tho, there are some very interesting phyllosophical ideas that seem to make sence, but on that note, they're just ideas. words. no facts

EDIT: oh, and if ya wanna look up something interesting -- one fact i find that really disproves evolution -- look up the bacterial flagellum
it's this nifty little motor-like machine that bacteria have in order to "swim" arround. evolution works over time, borrowing pieces from other areas to construct new things, but at the same time has the "survival of the fittest" idea, eliminating anything that's not immediately useful. the bacterial flagellum doesnt work unless every single piece exists. if a piece was missing durring evolution and it didnt function, the "survival..." process would eliminate it.... but it's arround today. to add a little more, evolution takes time, again, slowly mutating to make addaptions. the bacterial flagellum has 13-some-odd pieces that are in no other organism anywhere. all of those pieces would have had to be instantly generated and put into their exact places all at once for the process of elimination not to have exterminated it. sounds like it took a little brains to put that whole ordeal together, but isnt evolution sponanious and random? hmmm
10-07-2005, 06:20 PM
Sasquatch

Dammit, I had this thing nearly done, and screwed up, and now I have to do it all over again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

To start off, have you heard that the Catholic Bishops in Britain have declared that not all of the Bible is 'literrally true'? I know this doesn't actually change the argument, but I just thought it was interesting- Creationism is slipping away so much, that even the Catholic Church is forced to update it's doctrines.

You're probably taking this way out of context. Some parts -- few -- of the Bible are meant to be taken more figuratively than literally. Like Revelations. Not Genesis, or the Gospel. Anybody who has studied the Bible, or been taught the Bible, knows this. Just because some parts are to be taken more figuratively than literally doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Nice try. And like I said, the Catholic Church doesn't speak for all of Christianity.

Quote:

Well, many creationists do believe blindly. Many people also have blind beleif in evolutionism. But that's just normal, everyday people. Not scientists.

Of course, except those scientists who believe Creationism. Can't forget them. But you, you know what you're talking about, so much moreso than those "dumb" scientists, right? No matter that they've been studying a subject for longer than you've been breathing.

Quote:

Actually, any archaelogist/paeleontologist will say that the time taken for fossillisation differes depending on environment. Besides, proving that it can take just dozens of years, doesn't mean that it always does.

Yes, they'll say time to fossilize varies. But few will admit (until confronted with the proof, anyway -- and some not even then) that it's possible for something to fossilize in a few years. And no, it may not always take just a couple dozen years for something to become a fossil, but the fact that it has, many times, disproves the well-spread myth that it takes millions of years to do.

Quote:

Yes, you'll often find evidence interpreted in such a way as to fit one theory, if it can support another theory they're trying to prove. Just like polls and surveys can say anything the maker wants them to say, evidence can be interpreted many ways -- even manipulated to fit Evolutionism. As has been done, many times.

Just as you interpreted the Everest fossils so that they helped proved your idea. Hypocritical, maybe?[/QUOTE]

Actually, the fossils on Everest I mentioned can only be interpreted that way. The "reasoning" you try to use would be like finding a Ford Mustang in a garage built in 1920, and saying the entire thing was built just like you found it. The fossils on top of Everest are of things that Evolutionists say didn't exist at the time they could have gotten where they are -- when Everest was still underwater, there was no way those organisms could have fossilized, because they didn't exist. See how your logic is contradictory?

Quote:

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It deal with the whole subject, including the point that if it were not for plate tectonics, the whole earth would be worn completely smooth.

Completely smooth by what? Because water doesn't have the power to influence the shape of the crust, right?

Quote:

Maybe you could blame the poor American school system and it's hugely outdated educational material. Besides, this is a moot point- if my theories rascist, so's your's. There's no real way round that.

Alright, wrong on two parts here. Firstly, though the American pubic school system is nothing to be proud of (because it's run by our government), it certainly isn't "poor" or "hugely outdated". Of the three different school systems that tried to force-feed Evolutionism to me, in one, I was in a class of nearly 500 -- in the next, I made 60. Same material, new books, new "evidence". It doesn't really vary from teacher to teacher, school system to school system, state to state.

Second. Evolutionism is racist in nature. Just because you listed one extremist on either side that interpreted Christianity/Creation and Evolutionism as racist doesn't mean Evolutionism isn't racist in a moderate view as well. That doesn't make Creation racist, because nowhere in Genesis does it say that one race or color of people is any better, smarter, or more advanced than any other. Which is not the case with Evolutionism.

Quote:

Quote:

I haven't denied any logical "evidence" that supports Evolutionism. I've shown some to not be "evidence" at all, sure, but if it's there, I won't deny it. Whereas you've denied anything supporting my view.

Yep. You have. And plate tectonics, a theory which in no way contradicts creationism, despite your opinions. You just denie any eveidnce that I put forward.
Hell, you even called it "evidence". That's obvious denial.

Wrong again. If I'm confronted with real evidence -- by anybody, in any debate -- I actually consider it. What you've presented, however, is not real evidence, only manipulations and downright fabrications.

Quote:

Cars are affected by wear and tear. The gentic structure is not .(Except from radiation, but that's really a different thing altogether- it tend to just kill, rather than cause wear and tear.)

You'll learn about genetics in high school, so I won't go too far in depth with this. Basically, as genes are passed from parent to offspring, sometimes things go wrong -- wires get crossed, genes get misspliced, etc. -- and often, those -- we'll call them "defects" -- often, those defects pass from the offspring to their offspring, and so on. There are hundreds of thousands of genetic disorders in the world today, all going back to one defect long, long ago -- everything from Downs Syndome to Anemia to, hell, male-pattern baldness and webbed toes.

Quote:

I don't see how. How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge.
And, as I've said before, when the creation story was written, the Israelites were nomadic animal-herders, and not exactly the most adavnced scientific thinkers. It made sense at the time, yeah. But that time was about five or six thousands years ago.

Let me show you how you've just severely contradicted yourself with two consecutive statements. Here are the two arguments against this ... "logic".

1.) "How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge" -- which means, according to you, "nomadic animal-herders" may very well know quite a bit about the creation of the world. Hell, they may have been the most technologically advanced civilization in the world at that time, or for centuries to come. Because just because they were "nomadic animal-herders" doesn't mean they didn't know about more than that, right?
2.) "How you spend your life is not a direct reflection of your knowledge" -- Are you serious with this? Not only do you think you know more than those "dumb" scientists who believe Creation, but you think that studying something for ten, twenty, thirty years doesn't mean you know anything about it? I bet you know more about law than a career judge, and more about the military than a career soldier, and more about medicine than a career doctor, and more about architecture than a career engineer, huh? After all, just because they've done it all their life doesn't mean you don't know more than them about it.

Quote:

Quote:

...Some dinosaurs still exist today -- tribes with prettymuch no contact with the outside world, like in the Amazon or Congo, have stories of them. They've found plesiosaurs washed up on beaches. There are seven "Lochs" in Scotland -- all of them have reported similar sightings. Plus they've been sighted in Lake Champlain in New Hampshire, the Ogopogo in british Columbia, Isa in China, Usa in Japan, and in Bushman and Australian aboriginal rock-carvings. As well as in the Nazca stones. As well as Five-toed llama's painted on Teotihuacan pottery, even though they were supposedly extinct 5 million years ago, and paintings of the Archeopteryx, supposedly extinct about 170 million years ago, in Mayan temples.

Right. Now your using celtic folklore and meso-american mythology as evidence? Wooh... that's not gonna work.

I'm using dinosaurs that have been washed up on beaches. I'm using legends of interaction with creatures you say never co-existed with man. I'm using semi-accurate depictions of creatures which, according to you, nobody would have any idea what they looked like. I'm using depictions and stories from over a half-dozen cultures all over the world. But I guess you don't have any argument against it, so you'll attack it.

Quote:

Err... Eden was in mesopotamia (the Tigris and Euphrates ran out of it, and they're in Iraq, and the Pishon runs into 'Cush', or Kush, modern Ethiopia). The animals of the Brazillian rainforest are nor within reasonable distance of there.

You didn't get it. There were no animals in the Brizillian rainforest. They were created in Eden (not near Brazil), and they hadn't yet migrated. Don't worry, you'll get it someday.

Quote:

Quote:

Alright. Here we go. Evidence for Creation, and evidence against Evolutionism.
http://www.origins.org/articles/john...hofdarwin.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohl...ecreation.html
http://www.origins.org/mc/index.html
http://www.origins.org/menus/design.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=14
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx
http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php
The first and last, I'd recommend greatly.

Well, there are a few decent ones, but they're mostly either gibberish or just plain wrong. They seem to think that self-assurance and logic are the same thing... (Not all, remember- some were alright, if misguided).

So instead of debating against them, all valid sources, you attack most of them and dismiss the rest. Nice.

Quote:

OK, but one quesion:
Why the Bible?
WHat I mean by this is, why your particular religion? Why is it right? Because you beleive it? Why not Hinduism, or Taoism? Why not old Viking mythology? Frankly, most of them are as valid as Christian creationism.

Because I've researched Christianity and Evolutionism, as well as other religions, and I've come back to the one I have now. Evolutionism, believe it or not, was a big test of my faith, until I decided to research both sides of the issue and find out exactly why I believed what I believed, and whether or not I really should believe it. I've found the evidence to support my beliefs -- and I found it myself, I wasn't fed by some anti-religious textbook.

Quote:

That's why evolutionism is different- it isn't based on what you happened to believe- it's based on what's actually true.

Wrong again. It's based on what you already happened to believe -- that no supernatural being played a part in the creation of the universe and life. Since you've chosen to close your eyes to every other possibility, you think its "actually true" -- whereas most others would realize that it's only a theory, one possibility of many, and nowhere near proven true.
10-07-2005, 06:55 PM
Raistlin

Quote:

You're probably taking this way out of context. Some parts -- few -- of the Bible are meant to be taken more figuratively than literally. Like Revelations. Not Genesis, or the Gospel. Anybody who has studied the Bible, or been taught the Bible, knows this. Just because some parts are to be taken more figuratively than literally doesn't mean any of it isn't true.

Ok, then, why should we believe the Bible's true? Any of it? Why should we believe Genesis, when science has alternative explanations based on facts? Why should we take anything on "faith" instead of relying on our own minds to find explanations?

I do not subordinate my life or judgment to the will of the majority/collective, and neither do you. Neither should you subordinate your life or judgment to the will of some "higher being," whether one exists or not.
10-07-2005, 07:18 PM
Cipher

Hmm... you guys should write my Thesis Statement. :D

Anyway. Yeah. I'm Roman Catholic, but I am open-minded enough to want to research and learn about other religions. Therefore, I know something about every religion from Black Baptist to Zoroasterism.

Mind you, I'm not an expert on any given religion...but I know enough to give some very general information about it.
10-07-2005, 07:33 PM
Sasquatch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Ok, then, why should we believe the Bible's true? Any of it? Why should we believe Genesis, when science has alternative explanations based on facts? Why should we take anything on "faith" instead of relying on our own minds to find explanations?

Because it's part of the religion. When some people believe the religion, they can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to believe. Either somebody believes that religious text, or they don't. Since many people already believe Creation, and nothing has ben found to prove them wrong, why shouldn't they?

Quote:

I do not subordinate my life or judgment to the will of the majority/collective, and neither do you. Neither should you subordinate your life or judgment to the will of some "higher being," whether one exists or not.

It's all faith, and belief. When I believe that the "higher being" knows what to do with my life better than I do, I have no reason not to rely on the judgement of that "higher being". Just like when I was a kid, and might think "this seems like a good idea, but Dad wouldn't like me doing it, so maybe it's not." Same concept, really, inheriting the judgement of our Father.
10-07-2005, 07:48 PM
Raistlin

Quote:

Because it's part of the religion. When some people believe the religion, they can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to believe. Either somebody believes that religious text, or they don't. Since many people already believe Creation, and nothing has ben found to prove them wrong, why shouldn't they?

Why can't you pick and choose what you want to believe? Why do you have to belong to a specific group? That's mob mentality - support in numbers.

Nothing has been found to prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory wrong, either, so why shouldn't I believe in it? Something must first be proven to have some reason, some evidence, for it to be rationally believed true. Otherwise you allow for any stupid assertions.

Quote:

It's all faith, and belief.

Faith is the antithesis of reason, and of the value on one's own mind.

Quote:

When I believe that the "higher being" knows what to do with my life better than I do, I have no reason not to rely on the judgement of that "higher being". Just like when I was a kid, and might think "this seems like a good idea, but Dad wouldn't like me doing it, so maybe it's not." Same concept, really, inheriting the judgement of our Father.

If my dad disagrees with something I'm doing, he is free to give his reasons, and I will weigh them with my own reasons. I don't subordinate my life to anyone or anything - especially to something that I have no reason to believe in. Also, respecting God's judgment is absurd - does He talk to you at night? I didn't think so, so what is there to judge? A contradictory, absurd book (filled with more senseless violence than any other book in existence - if the Bible was a video game, it'd be Manhunt) written by some power-hungry tribal leaders thousands of years ago?

But I'm done. As EotW has shown, logic is useless against the irrational.
10-07-2005, 07:58 PM
?????

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raistlin

But I'm done. As EotW has shown, logic is useless against the irrational.

Wait a minute, that's why they banned me from there? Aw, man! Why didn't someone tell me sooner? I feel so out of the loop. :whimper:
10-07-2005, 08:06 PM
Lindy

You know, THIS is why I really don't post or look at here any more.

The internet makes me a sad panda, I hope you all learn one day that the internet, and indeed the whole world, doesn't give a damn about you or your internet arguments.
10-07-2005, 08:55 PM
RPJesus

Atheist, I suppose. Is that condradictory? Well, I don't believe in any god or 'what not', so... yep. It's funny saying that, though. I've been taught all my life that there is a god, and to say there isn't is still strange for me. Like saying Santa isn't real.
Legally, I'm Roman-Catholic but I don't believe in little ol' God.

As for this creationism you boys have got going? Getting a little far into it. To be simple:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

To start off, have you heard that the Catholic Bishops in Britain have declared that not all of the Bible is 'literrally true'? I know this doesn't actually change the argument, but I just thought it was interesting- Creationism is slipping away so much, that even the Catholic Church is forced to update it's doctrines.

You're probably taking this way out of context. Some parts -- few -- of the Bible are meant to be taken more figuratively than literally. Like Revelations. Not Genesis, or the Gospel. Anybody who has studied the Bible, or been taught the Bible, knows this. Just because some parts are to be taken more figuratively than literally doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Nice try. And like I said, the Catholic Church doesn't speak for all of Christianity.

Really? I was taught the bible. Before I was told anything I was told not to take most of the old testament seriously. It's mostly metaphors. Just stories used to explain life to people in a simple way. There was no Adam. No Eve. No Eden. None of that. It was stories. That's what I was taught.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

Because it's part of the religion. When some people believe the religion, they can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to believe. Either somebody believes that religious text, or they don't. Since many people already believe Creation, and nothing has ben found to prove them wrong, why shouldn't they?

Why can't you pick and choose what you want to believe? Why do you have to belong to a specific group? That's mob mentality - support in numbers.

Good point. In my opinion, you should never choose a religion 'cause it seems a little better than the others. That doesn't say too much about the religion. Never choose to believe every part of the religion for the reason that it is your religion. Take different ideas if you want and build something that makes an ounce of sense to you. That does leave you open to believe complete tripe, but in my opinion so do organised religions. ...he he? Having the religious authorities tell you what your every belief should be contradicts several of their other beliefs. I'd say it's very wrong to do that. Morally.
10-07-2005, 09:06 PM
bipper

Quote:

Originally Posted by raistilin

But I'm done. As EotW has shown, logic is useless against the irrational.

Mabey if you read the thread, and told people where you think they were being irrational. I guess just kicking and screaming about it works as well :rolleyes2 Before you go calling my posts baseless mabey you should read them and adhier to some thought before you throw down a label. I think the "Plants can feel" debate was definatley a great example, I post some actual scientific proof, and you seemingly just disregard it anyways.

Don't call me irrational because I have faith and knowlage in a religion that you think is false. Forcing your opinionated knowlage on someone else is just plaine rude. Granted, science holds many thruths, the bible also does, as well as the faith. Christianity is just fine, and being so, does not make you anyless of a person in any way.

Bipper
10-07-2005, 09:12 PM
RPJesus

Doesn't make you any less of a person. True. Unless you started the crusades or you're Joan of Arch, that it is. Or Bush. But... that was really their fault, not Christianity's.
10-07-2005, 11:07 PM
Traitorfish

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Ok, then, why should we believe the Bible's true? Any of it? Why should we believe Genesis, when science has alternative explanations based on facts? Why should we take anything on "faith" instead of relying on our own minds to find explanations?

Because it's part of the religion. When some people believe the religion, they can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to believe. Either somebody believes that religious text, or they don't. Since many people already believe Creation, and nothing has ben found to prove them wrong, why shouldn't they?

Hmm... it's true... because the rules say it's true? Well, that makes little or no sense to me, but, hey, I'm just a dumb old indepedndant thinker. What do I know about the universe? I never listen to semi-mad preachers or televangelist zealots! I'm nothing but a stupid, small-minded nincompoop who, for some reason, values the views of scienctists more than those of pre-historic nomads.
I mean, how could someone wandering the desert 8,000 years ago not know more about the world than someone with a PHD in zoology or geology? After all, these guys keep sheep, for God's sake! They're all geniuses! (Or geni-i, whatever you prefer).

Quote:

Quote:

I do not subordinate my life or judgment to the will of the majority/collective, and neither do you. Neither should you subordinate your life or judgment to the will of some "higher being," whether one exists or not.

It's all faith, and belief. When I believe that the "higher being" knows what to do with my life better than I do, I have no reason not to rely on the judgement of that "higher being". Just like when I was a kid, and might think "this seems like a good idea, but Dad wouldn't like me doing it, so maybe it's not." Same concept, really, inheriting the judgement of our Father.

But your not a kid. And, eventually, you had to start thinking for yourself, and not letting your dad do it for you.
That's the problem- creationists like their ideas because it removes a hell of a lot of effort from running their (and everyone else's) lives. It's all in the book. The untouchable, the all-knowing book. No need to think for yourself, or grapple with difficult moral issues! It'a ll there, written down, tried and tested.
Besides, why is god always the father? I'd think of him more as a mother. Or an a-sexual jellyblob thing.

Have you ever seen this?
http://www.venganza.org/
The interesting thing is that it's just about as plausible, and as easily proven, as creationism.
Check out the World Temperature/Number of Pirates graph. Classic.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bipper

Quote:

Originally Posted by raistilin

But I'm done. As EotW has shown, logic is useless against the irrational.

Mabey if you read the thread, and told people where you think they were being irrational. I guess just kicking and screaming about it works as well :rolleyes2 Before you go calling my posts baseless mabey you should read them and adhier to some thought before you throw down a label. I think the "Plants can feel" debate was definatley a great example, I post some actual scientific proof, and you seemingly just disregard it anyways.

That's true- even if I disagree with what you say, you do back up your ideas with valid points. I wish that were a more wide-spread habit...
10-07-2005, 11:09 PM
Shoden

lets just bitch on whether or not religion is real.

Thats what always happens with these threads lol.
10-07-2005, 11:11 PM
Traitorfish

Actually, the debate was on creationism vs evolutionism (evolutionism wins).
It's already been established that wether or not the concept of God is valid, is far too deeply philosophical too discuss here. It would just go badly.

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page