Evrae

Am I the only person thats a little annoyed at the way so many things on the internet assume that only Americans are going to read it? Though my personal bugbear is those drop down boxes of countries with USA right at the top, whereas I have to scroll right down to the bottom for UK. Are Americans really that lazy?

Only if that were really the case. If someone just believes a literal interpretation of the bible and dosen't suggest it's truthful by manipulating and misrepresenting science, I'd hasten to say I wouldn't give a toss. Exactly. Its when people use mistruths and lies that I take issue (mostly). I have no problem with other having their beliefs, but when they act on those beliefs, call me a liar and mislead children, then I get angry. :evil: Ans Saruman - the issue with carbon dating has been covered already, and shown to be a false concern. It works within the limits it is designed for - dead carbon based life-forms, up to about 60000 years old. With a margin of error. And how the heck could a fossil be just 2500 years old? Was it a different carbon dating test? Or a different type of test? Oh, I forgot - the fossil could be 2500 years old because of the magic power of god. This is the problem with religion, it goes against everything that has been observed and discovered over the past 4000 years or so by some of the most intelligent people there have been. Sorry if my retorts have been a bit 'crap', I think I think your arguments were a bit 'crap' in the first place. Just because 50 or so religions believe something doesn't make it right. All it says to me is that religion is foolish. 'GOD SPOKE...' has to be the worst argument devised by man. Instead of saying 'I don't know - lets find out', you are saying 'I don't know - therefore god did it'. It is a lazy, discourages experimentation, free-thought and the aquisition of knowledge. I despise it for that reason.

Where did I say all christians were terrorists? If you read the next couple of sentences you will see why I said the emboldened sentence, and the previous sentence indicates that it was aimed at a particular group. Poisoning the minds of your own children is bad enough, but attempting to poison the minds of entire towns is what I would call a threat to society. That museum some nutter opened which depicts dinosaurs walking around with humans. Or the books that claim the grand canyon is proof of the flood. All attempts to claim unfounded religious belief as scientific fact. That is a threat that needs countering. Instead of making exaggerated claims about what I said, why don't you actually answer the issues I've raised. I'd be interested to know how such actions could be said to be good for society. Okay, maybe my wording wasn't perfect, but five seconds thought would determine what I meant. Perhaps it might be better as 'As Assassin said, there are a great many Christians who do not view the bible as mere symbolism. And it is the practices of some of those christians, mainly in America but also here in the UK, that is most dangerous to society.' I imagine that there are some creationists who don't want creationism taught in schools as fact, so 'some' is appropriate. That isn't to say that there aren't christian terrorists. Those people who go around killing doctors would qualify I imagine. PIRA, IRA, UVF and more were all christian groups, though they have stopped now, thankfully.

Well, in a week I'll be off to Brittany (in France). I mainly like it for the food. mmm...Galettes.

Personally, I am of the belief that a word means what it is most commonly used to mean. This is the way in which Assassin uses fundamentalist. Unfortunately this can lead to confusions in discussions such as this. How about we try to use fundamentalist properly, and the creationists try to use 'theory' properly. As in 'evolution is just a theory'. Whats with the 'just eh? I suppose you could classify me an anti-christ, in that I am not a christian, and do not think that Jesus was the son of god. But I'm not certain that the negative association of being an evil-doer applies to me. And I am most definitely not an idiot. As Assassin said, there are a great many Christians who do not view the bible as mere symbolism. And it is the practices of those christians, mainly in America but also here in the UK, that is most dangerous to society. When children are told that their teachers are lying to them, when thinly disguised creationism is taught as science, then society is in danger. So there is a great emphasis on discrediting (for want of a better word) the creationist viewpoint, in the hope that people will see it for what it is - symbolism. There is then no conflict with what we observe around us. I personally go further, and say that once you see the bible as symbolism for a moral code, you can accept that moral code without the need to invoke God.

True, true. And I suppose that when we see a wide range of wavelengths the colours gradually change. Okay, question answered, i think. Thank you.

Aaaargh! You got me there! Its because of... Magic Pixies! Obviously. Some people are so ignorant. :lol:

Slightly connected to this is something I've always wondered - do colours look the same to everyone. It might be that what everyone calls blue looks to someone else the same as what i see red as. We both call it blue, but it might look different. Unfortunately I cannot think of any way to tell.

I'm guessing you've only got 3rd party insurance? Thats all thats required by law where I live anyway. If all your suspects are the sort of people who have done other bad things, things up something bad but non-illegal to do to them. They likely deserve it anyway. Or just dont get caught. Maybe launching a firework through their back door, and run away quickly :lol: Dont actually do that, though if you do, please post pictures!

I reckon we'll be alright - I mean wouldn't god be angry with anyone who just acceptted the bible as truth without question? It could be that the bible is actually the work of the devil tricking us. So by taking it as what it appears to be - complete guff - we're playing it safe. Thats my excuse anyway. I can just imagine someone getting to heaven and god saying 'hah - Do you people still believe all that rubbish? I only said it for a laugh!' If there is a god (I dont think there is, but you never know) I consider that to be a likelyhood, given the massive contradictions between genesis and reality.

I would contend that the morals we currently have as a society are derived from the Bible, and by extension the group of people who wrote the Bible. That is a group of people who were more successful than the neighbouring groups, with a more successful culture, possible as a result of their moral codes. It is an old saying that history is written by the victor, but true nonetheless. I'm afraid that had the Nazis won WW2, and we had all been brought up with their ideology, the Nazism would appear to be the right ideology to those people. Of course, it is likely (hopefully) that the Nazi ideology is flawed, and would not have survived long, as it would cause the destruction of the society that followed it. What I am trying to say is that morality is very much an attribute of a particular society. Those brought up in that society will, by and large share the beliefs of that society. Because the morals set out in the Bible are successful ones, otherwise they wouldn't have survived this long. A successful code of morals is one that is good for society and the people within it. Why the neccessity to invoke God? Are you saying that if there wasn't the promise of heaven for being good you would not behave properly? If you apply evolutionary principles to societies and cultures you can come to some interesting conclusions. My view of the Bible is as a particularly successful method of propagating a successful ideology. It its most basic terms it appeals to people's selfishness to cause them to act for the good of the society. Unfortunately the Bible also contains things that, while good for society when written, are harmful now. Particular the assertion of uniqueness, that it is the only correct account. Unfortunately this is pretty common in religion. As for the circularity issue, Satenza appears to have pretty much countered your arguments on that. However, I will add this. The source you presented asserted that once the historical facts stated in the bible are recognised, then the rest can be taken as true. This is unfortunately not the case. There are parts of the Bible that are clearly not true (particularly Genisis). So those parts on which we have no evidence, the parts that form the cornerstone of christianity (resurection), could be either true or false. Since they go against everything that can be observed and measured, it is a fairly safe bet that they are false.

or maybe it is the nature or nurture question? As in 'some people are born mad'. Though Jak's answer seems more plausible.

I just thought I'd quickly roflmao at that. Anglicanism is still the official religion of Britain. In fact it is one of the largest christian churches. And all because a horny bloke wanted to have another wife :shock: Ironic really, that one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world still has an official state religion, and bans the monarch from being catholic. Anyway, it all seems a bit petty really. What would Jesus say do you reckon 'this guys the boss - obey without question', or would he rail at the corrupt pomposity of catholicism? And can they really claim apostolic succession with popes like Alexander VI - the guy had kids for flips sake! All religion seems daft to me, but the Vatican appears to have used the power religion holds over people to accumulate worldly power - and that is just wrong.

You could make it even simpler. The bible says that the earth and universe were created together. If that were the case we would only be able to detect objects up to 6000 light years away. In fact it is possible to detect objects billion of light years away. Therefore the creationist account is wrong. The other possibility is that it really was god, but he is an arsehole. Setting things up so that every piece of evidence points to the non-existence of god. I think I'll stop there before I get really offensive.

There are two variations mentioned here. The first, as to who you would save first. The second as to whether you would actively murder 3000 to save someone you love. The first, I would go for the loved one. It would not be your fault, and 3000 is just that - a number. The second, I don't know. Its impossible to tell without being in that position. To everyone thats answered, whichever way, is there a magic number at which you would change your mind?

Communism also opens the way for horrendous brutality. If everything belongs to the state, and the state operates for the good of the people, then the slightest crime becomes treason. When you see yourself as acting on behalf of 'the people' or 'the greater good', anything becomes possible without further justification. Combine that with the fact that only those who want power are likely to achieve it (in any type of state), and you have a recipe for disaster. Perhaps national leaders should be selected at random from a pool of people with a certain level of qualifications. That would stop the power hungry.

Liberal airhead here - 2.933333 Except this is an American aimed quiz - in questions and results. In Britain I am a Conservative, to the right wing of politics. Which goes to show what I've believed for a while, that the US is more right-wing generally than Europe.

Of course, they can protest, but there's no guarantee what the government will do. According to the 'government' you can protest peacefully. But with the new government, they could shoot you even if you're protesting peacefully. Exactly. The police and army will follow the law. And if the law says that you cannot protest, or the current constitution is ammended to take away your current rights, then the police and army will follow that. It is possible for a country to go from democracy to dictatorship like this (the Wiemar republic). And that is truely worrying. It is unlikely to happen in the US because of the individualistic 2 party system. The 2-term maximum also helps, and all your checks and balances. But its possible. It is far more likely in a proportional representation system, but still possible in first-past-the-post. It worries me. I dont see it happening in britain any time soon either, but it is possible (more likely than the US).

here you go! :lol:

Communism, it its true, ideal, state, can never work. The reason is that its flawed. The premise of it is that the proletariat are good, and desire equality, while the bourgeoise are bad and live off the proletariat. Unfortunately, the majority of poor people want to be rich and powerful. Its human nature. While sharing everything equally makes sense intellectually, in reality what most people want is more than what their neighbour has. You cannot change human nature to fit political theories. It is possible to devise a system of complete equality, but it would entail oppression. Allow any leeway for trade, and the system will eventually degenerate to the one we have today. The fact is communism doesn't work. The only remotely successful communist country is one that isn't communist - China. And their 'communism' has changed so that its kept the oppression, but not the equality.

sure, it applies to everyone. But will it be applied to everyone? I'm guessing that muslim immigrants who send money back to their relations will be jumped on with the slightest suspicion that those relatives are terrorists, or support terrorists

Draconian, and unfair. But the usa doesn't exactly have a good record in this area. The treatment of japanese americans in ww2, and of suspected communists in the cold war. In fact it seems as if the constitutional protections have always been only for the right sort of people. How can slavery ever have been legal? The american constitution is a wonderful idea, its just a shame that people cant stick to the spirit of it.

[hide] That's a fairly general statement... can you back it up? Hehe, "study" may be a stretch for some people (which I believe is your point), but atheism stems from the rejection of religion and man-made gods. To reject something, you must understand what it is first. If one does not understand the god(s) they are rejecting, they are not truly the atheist they seem to think they are. I salute you if in fact you have a true understanding of what it is that you reject... However I know that before I was a Christian I would have described myself as an athiest (later a satanist). Why? Because I just accepted what other people claimed about the Bible as fact. A funny thing happened when I read it for myself... The contradictions? Well, some of them may actually be contradictions. Then again they may not. There are valid explanations both ways, though it seems to me that the explanations for them being non-contradictions are somewhat stronger. Funny thing is that the God of the Bible seems to do a lot better job of explaining some of the absurdities that are inherent to this universe which we inhabit then any other explanation, either theistic or materialistic. However, I will urge you rather then taking anybody's word, myself included, read the Bible, and do so in a modern translation. (I like the New International Version because of accuracy and readability) Find out for yourself such things as context, author's purpose, and perspective for whatever event or commandment is being recorded. If you are still not convinced, quite frankly you are in better company then the person who calls themself a Christian who has never examined what they believe... and I believe, based on a certian verse in Revelation (3:14-20 for those who are interested) that you are in better standing in God's eyes as well for knowing what it is that you reject. [/hide][/hide] Some might argue that if you were willing to accept what people said as fact, it would not be too difficult to sway you from that. As for the issuue of 'accuracy', I dont see how any english version can be considered 'accurate'. The bible has been translated between languages multiple times. In fact it has been argued that key concepts, such as virgin birth, are a result of a mistranslation. I'm not fluent in Hebrew, so I cant comment. But it sounds likely, as translation must be an incredibly difficult task. Then there is the possibility that it has been meddled with for political reasons - I find it hard to believe that every ruler that commisioned a version was able to resist the temptation. At least the Qur'an claims to be exactly the same :P

I think he probably missed out the 'some' :D It is the case that in some countries currently, and historically in mine (Britain) the lowest age of marriage was 12, and in some cases even lower. As for animals, chimps, particularly bonobos, do it basically as a way to say hello. So its not just humans that do it for pleasure. That was a pretty graphic wildlife program... EDIT I've read through the whole topic, and something interesting has come to my attention. From page 12, the posts are pretty much identical to the first few pages. It seems as if once a topic gets to a certain length, people dont bother to read any of it. At least read the first 5 pages people!

Yep, in Britain its 5 years old at home with your parents, 16 with a meal, 18 otherwise. Though if you get lucky, and all your friends are 18, and its busy you can get served at 17 (illegal, but it still tastes good). I got completely wasted on my 18th though. I managed to drink double my usual limit (4 pints of cider not 2 :oops: ), before throwing up. A lot. It wasn't pretty - don't do it kids!