Your standing on religion

[kirbybeam]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, this has everything to do with religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, kirbybeam has no life and spends way too much time making his posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THat only took me at least maybe 5 minutes... what percent of my life was that? more like 0.00000000000003%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to be technical, energy fluctuation is a quantum effect not a macro effect. Sure energy can be created and destroyed by it doesn't happen in our every day experience (thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ålaw of the conservation of energyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

I would advise you against brandishing your secular Biblical knowledge in the way you did. For instance, you say they were written during the Babylonian captivity by people who weren't there - that is incorrect. The first 5 books of the Bible, the Torah Laws, were written by Moses. And if you didn't know..Moses was a key player in Exodus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How did Moses write about his own death then, and how he was buried?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me clarify. He wrote a good deal of it. I generalized, which I admit I shouldn't have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is widely accepted that Joshua wrote the book of Joshua (guess who that was about!) and almost all of the prophetic books of the Bible were written by the people whom they are named after (Daniel for isntance.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Widely accepted by WHO!? Not even Jews believe that the book of Joshua was written by only Joshua. Only Christians claim it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's inacurate., unless you mean that of course Joshua didn't handwrite it. Most people believed he only dictated it and had someone else write it for him. The datings of the dead sea scrolls and other documents do match up with the time that was suggested as their writing. It just doesn't fit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the beginning of all matter and all existance of anything is theory. Scientists cannot explain the very beginning of time any better than theologians can. You just need to accept that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it is a theory, just like gravity, cells, and germs. Do you accept these things, because they hold the same weight as the Big Bang Theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, scientists can MUCH better explain the beginning of time than theologians can. Scientists have data, graphs, analysis, observations, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do theologians have? "goddidit".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point exactly. It is no more theory than anything else. And no, we can see the effects of gravity. There is no credible evidence for anything theories that show how time started. Its all theory...why can't you accept that just as I accept that Christian beliefs are purely based on faith?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It might be more logical, but then again, your example isn't. We see bacteria adapting to what was harming them...we do not see them evoloving to another being, another species. Its the primary difference between natural selection and evolution that most Darwinians overlook.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you trying to say that we have never observed speciation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again...I see nothing but theory here. I don't see anything that is proven, nor do I see anything they are willing to teach as fact. Hypothesis was a word I did see several times...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, so you've died before? Seriously, you sound like an idiot telling us you can tell us for sure there is no Heaven or Hell. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't make it "for sure that it doesn't exist." You've never died, so you don't know what is afterwards. Who's to say that God didn't make us "chemical beings when it comes down to it," it doesn't mean there isn't something more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His claim is just as credible as yours, if not more credible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly you did not read the last part of my post...that is my point exactly. To be so close minded to say that "i know this for a fact" is ridiculous. No one has any theories that are better than anyone elses because all of this is just theory. You can't prove scientists or theologians right or wrong with any of this theorietical garbage (on both sides).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually you're confusing Buddhism (I'm glad you know how to spell it) the religion, and Buddhism the philosophy. The religion does focus on obtaining a better afterlife, whereas the philosophy just focuses on being a better person for here and now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are one and the same. Buddhist philosophy is the religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, you're wrong once again. There are Buddhists who practice the religion, and Buddhists who just practice it as a life philosophy. They are not the same thing. The religious aspect of it is why Buddhism went into China in the first place. Yet at the same time, I know several people who only practice the lifestyle...and do not treat it as a religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is not to prove you wrong about your beliefs- but to teach you tolerance. You don't know nearly as much as you think you do, yet you think you are capable of making these outlandish statements. You would do wise to follow the secular philosophers of your past and instead of refuting religion, actually learn about it and accept it as a lifestyle you don't choose to partake in. But to insult it, call it bs, and make ridiculous claims about how "you know this and that for sure" is insane. You should know better than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a feeling, you aren't talking about religion in general, but only Christianity. In fact, that's what I think is a big problem in this thread. People seem to think that the only two options are Christianity and atheism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, why shouldn't people be critical of religion? Look at all the trouble it has caused!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No...if you read that paragraph you would know I was talking about religion. That paragraph summed up my entire point - you cannot prove religion right or wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Religion defies all physical laws

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) All theories at how time started are only theories and will never be proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever read the Bible? It's the main reason why I would never become a Christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes...I've read the Bible numerous times cover to cover. Frankly, I don't care if you want to be a Christian. My only point has, and always has been, is that physics and theories about the beginning of time cannot prove religion wrong.

[Astralinre]

 

No, what you seemed to be doing was trying to refute other peoples' religious arguments with your knowledge of Physics. This does not work. In admitting that you cannot open the pocke[bleep]ch, you simultaneously admit that you know just as little as the religious types about the universe and the way it works. Sure, your way is the way that actually seems to work, but you have said yourself that you will never know the actual "thing" itself. You must understand: to them, what they have said is just as valid as your Physics. I may happen to agree with you, and not them, but that doesn't mean I think your argument holds any water in this field.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's ridiculous. Science and theology are not the same. I have facts, evidence, observations, and all sorts of other things to support my proposition. What the hell do religious people have? Some random person claiming that the world was created by an invisible man in the sky? How are these two claims equal???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, regardless of anything else you may say, science and theology are both myths. They're both based on unprovable assumptions. Science assumes that human reason is sufficient for explaining reality, or at least the parts with which we deal. Theology assumes that human reason, unaided, cannot explain reality entirely accurately. Your assumption is just as unproven as a Theist's, so stop bashing theism like it's pure idiocy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me use the pocke[bleep]ch analogy again. Science is about knowing the placement of the gears in the watch. Sure, we can never know for sure how the gears are EXACTLY, but we can have good guesses. And science doesn't try to explain where the pocke[bleep]ch came from either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But religious people are different. Their claims are the equivalent of saying that there are no gears in the watch, but little dwarves working in it. That leads to so many more questions (where did the dwarves come from? What do they eat? How do they live? etc. etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But how do you know the watch in run by gears if you can't know the inside of the watch? You're just assuming that the watch works that way. And where did the gears come from? Who designed them? Who keeps winding up the watch? If the watch is battery powered, then how do the batteries get changed? Your assumption leads to so many more questions...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and you said that the whole "the more you know, the more you realise that you don't know" was true for all topics? Well... yes and no. It's not quite the same, but those who "have religion" often believe that, in knowing their love for god, they know all they need to know, which is a shame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, those people are fools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a Christian, I agree. I agree that knowing God and loving Him is all one needs, but I also agree that it's foolish to not seek knowledge. After all, if one loves God, shouldn't one strive to learn more about Him by learning about His creation? (e.g. studying science, math, literature, history, and so on.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the beginning of all matter and all existance of anything is theory. Scientists cannot explain the very beginning of time any better than theologians can. You just need to accept that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it is a theory, just like gravity, cells, and germs. Do you accept these things, because they hold the same weight as the Big Bang Theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, scientists can MUCH better explain the beginning of time than theologians can. Scientists have data, graphs, analysis, observations, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do theologians have? "goddidit".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accepting one theory hardly means that one agrees with all other theories. Some theories have more evidence and hold more water than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why does it make scientists better that they have data and graphs? Creationists, in the broadest sense of the world, have millenia of books, religions, songs, and the support of the vast majority of cultures throughout history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd really appreciate if you'd stop bashing theism needlessly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever read the Bible? It's the main reason why I would never become a Christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have read the Bible, cover to cover, and I wonder if you've actually read it. You know all of those content warnings the picture listed? The Bible condemns those. One of the primary themes of the Bible is the sinfulness of man and his need for redemption. What better way to show man's depravity than by showing him at his worst? Even the greatest figures of the Old Testament, Abraham, Moses, David, and so on, are very sinful. And yet God blesses them. Is He blessing them for their sins? No, He does so in spite of their sins. If you have read the Bible, you've obviously read it wrongly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suggest you stop making rude, baseless claims that can only be interpreted as flaming. Sooner or later your going to make someone angry or get yourself in trouble. Would you appreciate it if I came up to you and started insulting all of your beliefs, especially if none of my insults held any water? You'd dismiss me for an idiot and move on.

[kirbybeam]

Let me clarify. He wrote a good deal of it. I generalized, which I admit I shouldn't have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's inacurate., unless you mean that of course Joshua didn't handwrite it. Most people believed he only dictated it and had someone else write it for him. The datings of the dead sea scrolls and other documents do match up with the time that was suggested as their writing. It just doesn't fit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because they match up with the time of their writing doesn't mean that we know who wrote it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point exactly. It is no more theory than anything else. And no, we can see the effects of gravity. There is no credible evidence for anything theories that show how time started. Its all theory...why can't you accept that just as I accept that Christian beliefs are purely based on faith?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, quite frankly, I don't care if you believe in Christianity based on faith. That's nice to know that you don't critically examine your beliefs, and instead are content with wishful thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again...I see nothing but theory here. I don't see anything that is proven, nor do I see anything they are willing to teach as fact. Hypothesis was a word I did see several times...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See above quote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly you did not read the last part of my post...that is my point exactly. To be so close minded to say that "i know this for a fact" is ridiculous. No one has any theories that are better than anyone elses because all of this is just theory. You can't prove scientists or theologians right or wrong with any of this theorietical garbage (on both sides).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See above quote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, you're wrong once again. There are Buddhists who practice the religion, and Buddhists who just practice it as a life philosophy. They are not the same thing. The religious aspect of it is why Buddhism went into China in the first place. Yet at the same time, I know several people who only practice the lifestyle...and do not treat it as a religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's nice that you know some people, but that is totally subjective. Do you have any factual evidence, or are you going to take this up on faith too? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No...if you read that paragraph you would know I was talking about religion. That paragraph summed up my entire point - you cannot prove religion right or wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you can read between the lines, I'm actually talking about Christianity, and not religion in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Religion defies all physical laws

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it does not. That only applies to Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) All theories at how time started are only theories and will never be proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, see above quote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes...I've read the Bible numerous times cover to cover. Frankly, I don't care if you want to be a Christian. My only point has, and always has been, is that physics and theories about the beginning of time cannot prove religion wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't prove religion wrong, but it certainly proves that the Bible cannot be taken literally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, regardless of anything else you may say, science and theology are both myths. They're both based on unprovable assumptions. Science assumes that human reason is sufficient for explaining reality, or at least the parts with which we deal. Theology assumes that human reason, unaided, cannot explain reality entirely accurately. Your assumption is just as unproven as a Theist's, so stop bashing theism like it's pure idiocy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the hell? Science is naturalistic, theology is NOT naturalistic at all. There is a big difference. And like I said, the goal of science isn't to explain reality as it actually is, it is to explain reality from our viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, I am not bashing "theism". I believe in God. I am a rationalist transcendentalist Muslim, thank you very much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But how do you know the watch in run by gears if you can't know the inside of the watch? You're just assuming that the watch works that way. And where did the gears come from? Who designed them? Who keeps winding up the watch? If the watch is battery powered, then how do the batteries get changed? Your assumption leads to so many more questions...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science does not say that it knows for sure. But your religion does. That is the fundamental difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science always corrects itself. Your religion? There are still Christians who believe the earth is flat, and they cite the Bible as evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accepting one theory hardly means that one agrees with all other theories. Some theories have more evidence and hold more water than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't understand what a scientific theory is. Again, I refer you to my quote above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why does it make scientists better that they have data and graphs? Creationists, in the broadest sense of the world, have millenia of books, religions, songs, and the support of the vast majority of cultures throughout history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are joking right? Songs? I measure the length of my table with a rule, it is 3 feet and 6 inches. Now, if someone writes a song about my table being 4 feet, that isn't the same damn thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, what do you mean by "creationism" in the broadest sense? EVERY culture has its own creation myth, and they are all conflicting. Plus. that doesn't matter. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd really appreciate if you'd stop bashing theism needlessly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I haven't bashed theism, only Protestant Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have read the Bible, cover to cover, and I wonder if you've actually read it. You know all of those content warnings the picture listed? The Bible condemns those. One of the primary themes of the Bible is the sinfulness of man and his need for redemption. What better way to show man's depravity than by showing him at his worst?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't condemn all of them, just some. And, that's what makes draws me away from the Bible, it's disgusting with its descriptions. People eating their own dung? Lot copulating with his own daughters after making them intoxicated? Jesus saying to pluck out your own eyes? Talking about how a woman's private parts taste like wine?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No thanks, I'll pass.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even the greatest figures of the Old Testament, Abraham, Moses, David, and so on, are very sinful. And yet God blesses them. Is He blessing them for their sins? No, He does so in spite of their sins. If you have read the Bible, you've obviously read it wrongly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, I disagree that those people you named were very sinful. Second, God blesses them because they worshipped Him and devoted their lives to Him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suggest you stop making rude, baseless claims that can only be interpreted as flaming. Sooner or later your going to make someone angry or get yourself in trouble. Would you appreciate it if I came up to you and started insulting all of your beliefs, especially if none of my insults held any water? You'd dismiss me for an idiot and move on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I wouldn't; instead, I'd challenge you and reveal your falsehood.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

But... there is this thing called rationalism. It appears that the universe started as described by the Big Bang Theory, so why not accept it as objective?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't mean to say that it's wrong to believe what you believe -- which is why I keep mentioning that I agree with you. However, the whole point of this argument has been that simply accepting that the physics is right is as small minded as accepting that there is a god who controls everything; both are just as reasonable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a key, and I try to open the door to my house. But the key doesn't work. It turns out I'm at the wrong house! So... is it reasonable to believe that I am at the wrong house? I mean, I can NEVER know for sure, according to you...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed, and in most cases, it doesn't matter that you can't know for sure -- you're most likely correct (or your wife has made a cuckold of you and has changed the locks). However, we're not dealing with every day life, here: we're talking about religion, and what is ultimately correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say that physics is used to explain how things seem to work to us: true, and this is a good point, relevant to religious topics. What is not relevant is each individual law that you believe the universe seems to work by. Unless, of course, you are simply telling us how you think the world works -- in this case, it would be better to refer us to a text book.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't even talking about religion when I first came into this topic, thank you very much. I just wanted to correct a minor error that someone made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, well sorry about that, I should have payed more attention; I assumed you were the one to have brought the physics in, being so vehement and ... pernickety... as you were. Still, you've started arguing now, so...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's ridiculous. Science and theology are not the same. I have facts, evidence, observations, and all sorts of other things to support my proposition. What the hell do religious people have? Some random person claiming that the world was created by an invisible man in the sky? How are these two claims equal???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your saying that science and theology are not the same illustrates exactly the thing I'm trying to get at. Science and theology are very much the same, whether you believe both or not. Science is exploratory, I'll give you that, but it offers no more in the way of explanation than theology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Listen, I don't like having to play devil's advocate here, but I'll give it a go...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's say I'm a Christian. I feel the love of God day in, day out. In fact, God speaks to me. He tells me all sorts of things, and assures me that the world works through his greatness. All that sort of thing. I've been told beyond doubt that this is the case, and so can believe quite easilly that all this physics business only works because of God. [/horrible contradiction of own beliefs]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now... "What the hell do religious people have?" you ask? Well, what do you have? You surely don't have facts: you have things you assume to be true -- that you take for granted as being correct. So too does the religious person. You might argue that yours have a lot more evidence than theirs; this is not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[again with the religious fervor] I see the work of God in everything I encounter, I feel it in my bones, and all that. Last evening, the told me that the sun moves round the earth, just like I assumed. Also, he told me that there's some great big invisible man in the sky. I looked to God for confirmation of this; he said it's true. I've read in a book that the earth goes round the sun. I don't believe this; I have no reason to. I further saw a documentary on television, pertaining to astronauts, who say they have seen that the earth goes round the sun. It's their word against mine, I suppose. [/anathema to my very being]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, the evidence is highly stacked in your favor: all things point to the earth moving round the sun, I'll give you that. Also, do not get the impression that I'm trying to suggest that, because the religious person doesn't know any better, what he believes is right -- this is not the case. However, how do you justify saying that your evidence is any more reasonable or plausible than his? Loth though I am to repeat myself but have you ever been there? Into space, I mean. If you have, bah, not fair, I want to go into space. If not, how do you know any of the cosmology that you've learnt is true? It seems to work, that's how.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To the religious person, religion seems to work. The invisible man in the sky seems to be there, just as much as the satellite photos seem to be there. The observations of the religious person are... I don't know, whatever they claim as evidence for their religion. The smiles on little babies' faces, for all I care. What matters, you suggest, is that they seem to work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is how the claims are equal: they both seem to work. (At least to some people).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me use the pocke[bleep]ch analogy again. Science is about knowing the placement of the gears in the watch. Sure, we can never know for sure how the gears are EXACTLY, but we can have good guesses. And science doesn't try to explain where the pocke[bleep]ch came from either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But religious people are different. Their claims are the equivalent of saying that there are no gears in the watch, but little dwarves working in it. That leads to so many more questions (where did the dwarves come from? What do they eat? How do they live? etc. etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, you seem to be so sure that you're right that you're missing the point. (And once again, I agree with you, but that's not what's important).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion is just as much about knowing the placement of the gears as science. What do you think people spend all this time coming up with whacko religious concepts for? The idea of dwarves working the clock is just as reasonable as it being worked by gears, in that, as you can't see the gears, you don't know if they even exist. Similarly, you don't know the dwarves don't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again we arrive at the crux of the matter: that you are assuming religious explanations of the world to be wrong, simply because they sound stupid to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and the dwarves don't necessarily eat; religious people are not so small minded as to assume that the extraplanar dwarves of chaos require sustenance. Rather, they are content to allow the dwarves to continue with their working the universe, which they seem to be doing so well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it is a theory, just like gravity, cells, and germs. Do you accept these things, because they hold the same weight as the Big Bang Theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really: we can all throw something up in the air and watch it fall down again. We can also all test how fast they accelerate when falling down, and do all sorts of experiments to see how this relates to all manner of other matters. We can all watch things go mouldy, and we can all look through microscopes and actually see the little things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What we cannot all do, however, [edit] extrapolate that, so many billions of years ago the universe began in a big bang. The big difference is the extent to which these ideas are based upon other ideas: we can see gravity "happening"; we can see germs "happening"; we can see that, because of this or that which we can see happening, the big bang must have happened. It is similar to saying "I can see the germs on the bread: now I may assume all manner of things about how these germs got onto the piece of bread". Obviously it's not quite like that; I'm sure there's a whole load of evidence I've not yet come across for the big bang. No amount of evidence can ever bring us back to the time of the big bang so that we can observe it happening, however. *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, scientists can MUCH better explain the beginning of time than theologians can. Scientists have data, graphs, analysis, observations, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do theologians have?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There you go again... Data, graphs, analysis, observations -- these things are not better explanations of the beginning of time: they are simply ones which you think are more likely to be correct. I think so too; this doesn't mean we're right. For all we know, there could be a god of maths, who makes these things work to keep us occupied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*and yes, I am aware of the whole "radiation from the big bang" observation business: this is no more proof of the big bang than the is proof of god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edits: added "is". Removed one "bang". Not even going to justify katsuro0's narrow minded post with a responce, if he/she wasn't reading mine clearly enough to see where I was taking the role of a religious person for the sake of argument. Kirbybeam admitted that certain things are unknowable (or something to that effect); if we've already got past that part of the argument, I see no reason to explain it again.

[katsuro0]

I don't mean to say that it's wrong to believe what you believe -- which is why I keep mentioning that I agree with you. However, the whole point of this argument has been that simply accepting that the physics is right is as small minded as accepting that there is a god who controls everything; both are just as reasonable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they aren't both equal in reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's say I'm a Christian. I feel the love of God day in, day out. In fact, God speaks to me. He tells me all sorts of things, and assures me that the world works through his greatness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if you think god speaks with you, then you are just a loon who takes coincidences way too seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now... "What the hell do religious people have?" you ask? Well, what do you have? You surely don't have facts: you have things you assume to be true -- that you take for granted as being correct. So too does the religious person. You might argue that yours have a lot more evidence than theirs; this is not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no. we deffenitly have facts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The observations of the religious person are... I don't know, whatever they claim as evidence for their religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

except that evidence can be proven false through logic and reason :roll: and don't say that our reason could be false because you dam well know that that's pure stupidity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What we cannot all do, however, extrapolate that, so many billions of years ago the universe began in a big bang. The big difference is the extent to which these ideas are based upon other ideas: we can see gravity "happening"; we can see germs "happening"; we can see that, because of this or that which we can see happening, the big bang must have happened. It is similar to saying "I can see the germs on the bread: now I may assume all manner of things about how these germs got onto the piece of bread".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and what exactly do you make your assumptions from? myths and stories. where do we make our assumptions from? proven reason, logic, experiments, and facts. and yes, "facts" is a factual word

[MyPurpleCrayon]

 

 

 

And, quite frankly, I don't care if you believe in Christianity based on faith. That's nice to know that you don't critically examine your beliefs, and instead are content with wishful thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow I'm sick of you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one likes you here, no one at all. All you have done is come into this forum, and insult everyone. You're wrong about half the things you say and all you can do to back up your opinion is quote nonsense on "wikipedia", (which is written by people like you, yes the people with no life that have nothing better to do than to spend their time proving others wrong, which they always fail misreably at).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And DO NOT insult my religion. Just because I base the vast majority of it on faith, does not mean that I have not done my fair share of research. And that I do not "CRITICALLY EXAMINE MY BELIEFS AND INSTEAD AM CONTENT WITH WISHFUL THINKING".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My bible is not a work of fiction, in fact, if you have actually read, 'maybe one verse', you would understand it. Historical events that ACTUALLY HAPPENED are in the Bible. I mean, if you want to argue with history, which I'm sure you would, go ahead, but I will just laugh at you and think of more ways that you are a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm so pissed at you, and everyone like you. It is actually becoming hard for me to type. I might actually break something and pretend it is your ego.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously man, get outta here.

[insane]

And, quite frankly, I don't care if you believe in Christianity based on faith. That's nice to know that you don't critically examine your beliefs, and instead are content with wishful thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe if you understood the Christian faith a little more you'd understand that it's not the opposite of reason/intelligent.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

That's inacurate., unless you mean that of course Joshua didn't handwrite it. Most people believed he only dictated it and had someone else write it for him. The datings of the dead sea scrolls and other documents do match up with the time that was suggested as their writing. It just doesn't fit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because they match up with the time of their writing doesn't mean that we know who wrote it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually that was the point. The point I was referring to was the time period that they were written. I guess you didn't read my original point. If you aren't going to read what I say, why respond?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point exactly. It is no more theory than anything else. And no, we can see the effects of gravity. There is no credible evidence for anything theories that show how time started. Its all theory...why can't you accept that just as I accept that Christian beliefs are purely based on faith?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its theory. Look the word up. Theory. That's all that needs to be said I think but I will say there is a difference between scientific theory and scientific law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, quite frankly, I don't care if you believe in Christianity based on faith. That's nice to know that you don't critically examine your beliefs, and instead are content with wishful thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do think critically and I think I've proven myself in these posts that I do think critically. Just because I believe in something that can defy mere human limitations doesn't mean I don't think critically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again...I see nothing but theory here. I don't see anything that is proven, nor do I see anything they are willing to teach as fact. Hypothesis was a word I did see several times...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See above quote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above quote doesn't make sense. Unless you were referring to your one about scientific theory. In that case, see my above response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly you did not read the last part of my post...that is my point exactly. To be so close minded to say that "i know this for a fact" is ridiculous. No one has any theories that are better than anyone elses because all of this is just theory. You can't prove scientists or theologians right or wrong with any of this theorietical garbage (on both sides).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See above quote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You didn't respond to the fact that it is ridiculous to try and say "this scientific law proves you wrong" because somewhere along the way, these scientific laws had to begin. Somewhere...something that broke those laws had to create them. Once again, everything about the beginning of time is theory, - if it was more than theory then we would be taught the origin of time as scientific law - which we are not. So tell me, if these theories you claim to support so fully are concrete law, why are kids not raised learning them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, you're wrong once again. There are Buddhists who practice the religion, and Buddhists who just practice it as a life philosophy. They are not the same thing. The religious aspect of it is why Buddhism went into China in the first place. Yet at the same time, I know several people who only practice the lifestyle...and do not treat it as a religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's nice that you know some people, but that is totally subjective. Do you have any factual evidence, or are you going to take this up on faith too? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I have factual evidence, but no I'm not going to just quote a bunch of sources like you do. I know people who practice the philosophy - what evidence do you have? How about you take the time to research the origins of Buddhism like I have and how it spread to China before you argue with my point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No...if you read that paragraph you would know I was talking about religion. That paragraph summed up my entire point - you cannot prove religion right or wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you can read between the lines, I'm actually talking about Christianity, and not religion in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Religion defies all physical laws

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it does not. That only applies to Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) All theories at how time started are only theories and will never be proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, see above quote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, you see above quote doesn't make sense once again. Why do you persist in thinking that theories are laws. You ask if I understand what scientific theory is, yet you treat it like scientific law. Do you know the difference?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes...I've read the Bible numerous times cover to cover. Frankly, I don't care if you want to be a Christian. My only point has, and always has been, is that physics and theories about the beginning of time cannot prove religion wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't prove religion wrong, but it certainly proves that the Bible cannot be taken literally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't think it can be taken literally...and there are passages that should not be taken literally. But just because you believe something, doesn't make it true. You weren't there, were you? So you only have your beliefs verse someone elses belief. You are only 16 years old, how can you say that nothing can ever defy the laws of physics? How much of this world have you seen that you could say that? What about people who claim to have seen things defy the laws of physics? Are they liars? Why is their evidence any less credible than yours? Is it just because you don't believe their evidence exists? If that's why, then your belief is based on faith. You have faith that what people who have had religious experiences that defy the laws of physics are not telling the truth. You have no evidence that they are lying. Is faith acceptable in your position?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And go back and check your post. I didn't say half of the stuff you quoted me for saying. I think the above pretty much sums up what I have to say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, quite frankly, I don't care if you believe in Christianity based on faith. That's nice to know that you don't critically examine your beliefs, and instead are content with wishful thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe if you understood the Christian faith a little more you'd understand that it's not the opposite of reason/intelligent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He thinks he knows a lot more about Christianity than he does. :? It doesn't help in these situations...

[deerpark1]

I'm Jewish, but I can't say I follow the beliefs so much. I believe in a higher power, call it God or whatever you wish. I don't believe this thing controls our every act or even cares what we do, but is there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't like organized religion in the sense that it's too political anymore (when hasn't it been?). I guess fanaticism in any genre, be it religion, politics, beliefs, etc., is too much. So closing yourself out to only a certain set of beliefs is not leaving room for other possibilities, and just being somewhat close-minded. It's like if I were to call myself a Christian, wouldn't I be restricted to only the beliefs of a Christian? But I'm Jewish, and I believe something totally different, and there are even some Jewish beliefs I disagree with. Obviously one of the many religions is more 'right' than others, so why not pick up on other beliefs and sort of mix them. That would be ideal for me, studying other religions and choosing the beliefs that are right for me. I'm a unique person, as is everyone else. I don't think I should have the same beliefs as anyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My real pet-peeve on religion is converting. In my eyes, if a person is down to the point where they need religion in their life, they will seek it. I guess when people come up to me asking if I want to be their religion it's no biggy, but if I wanted to be any religion I would explore the possibilities and choose based on their beliefs. But converters are simply salespeople, they need to know how to convince you to go with them and their choice. I don't like dealing with used-car salesmen either. They just don't seem to accept 'No' for an answer. If they respected the beliefs of those who they are trying to convert, they would leave after "No thanks."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just want to know what part of the jewish beliefs you don't agree with.

[katsuro0]

My bible is not a work of fiction, in fact, if you have actually read, 'maybe one verse', you would understand it. Historical events that ACTUALLY HAPPENED are in the Bible. I mean, if you want to argue with history, which I'm sure you would, go ahead, but I will just laugh at you and think of more ways that you are a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the bible isn't supposed to be read as a history book :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one likes you here, no one at all. All you have done is come into this forum, and insult everyone. You're wrong about half the things you say and all you can do to back up your opinion is quote nonsense on "wikipedia", (which is written by people like you, yes the people with no life that have nothing better to do than to spend their time proving others wrong, which they always fail misreably at).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

strong words, by a stupid person. You're the typical runescape idiot: prancing around saying others don't have lives because you know that they can't do anything back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And DO NOT insult my religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

your religion? i can pretty much bet that whatever you believe in, you didn't come up with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I might actually break something and pretend it is your ego.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously man, get outta here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

try breaking your computer...that will satisfy a number of people

[MyPurpleCrayon]

 

 

 

the bible isn't supposed to be read as a history book :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said it was. /rolls eyes/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

strong words, by a stupid person. You're the typical runescape idiot: prancing around saying others don't have lives because you know that they can't do anything back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hahaha your the typical douche bag I guess. Quit runescape over a year ago, although that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I was defending myself, my brother, and my religion. Get off me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

your religion? i can pretty much bet that whatever you believe in, you didn't come up with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who said anything about me 'coming up with' it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE MISQUOTE ME ONE MORE TIME.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

try breaking your computer...that will satisfy a number of people

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure who you're talking about, but it is definitley not me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have never seen you before, but I'm pretty sure only morons like yourself dislike me.

[Guest GhostRanger]

the bible isn't supposed to be read as a history book :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible has lots of stories that actually did happen...and any historian who is active in the field is familiar with the Biblical stories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

your religion? i can pretty much bet that whatever you believe in, you didn't come up with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reading comprehension is a basic skill. Clearly when he said my religion he was referencing as it was a religion that he practices. It is common lingo and for you to pretend like you don't know that is ridiculous. Maybe you just don't know that....in that case you're ignorant and should not be posting on a religious thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

try breaking your computer...that will satisfy a number of people

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you not respond to the post that was made earlier about your post? It was full of such inaccuracies I could hardly stand it. Why did you ignore the correction of your completely asinine remarks?

[katsuro0]

Historical events that ACTUALLY HAPPENED are in the Bible. I mean, if you want to argue with history, which I'm sure you would, go ahead, but I will just laugh at you and think of more ways that you are a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And DO NOT insult my religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ya, i sure did misquote you :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its funny how you'd call me a moron when you don't even know what you typed :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...and im pretty sure a lot more people dislike you if you have to come onto a game forum to back your religion and family

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(im calling you a loser)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

where you able to read that? or should i clarify it a few more thousand times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i bet this topic will get locked soon

[katsuro0]

please clairfy my asinine remarks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the bible is not supposed to be read as a history book. it doesn't matter what events take place in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and only the new testament really shows events that actually happened, but wait one moment...there is NO proof that jesus ever lived (show me the proof if you think there is and ill stand corrected)

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Historical events that ACTUALLY HAPPENED are in the Bible. I mean, if you want to argue with history, which I'm sure you would, go ahead, but I will just laugh at you and think of more ways that you are a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And DO NOT insult my religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ya, i sure did misquote you :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its funny how you'd call me a moron when you don't even know what you typed :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...and im pretty sure a lot more people dislike you if you have to come onto a game forum to back your religion and family

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(im calling you a loser)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

where you able to read that? or should i clarify it a few more thousand times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i bet this topic will get locked soon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This topic could stay open if people could discuss it without calling each other names (ahem ahem)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And by your qualifications...you are on a game forum discussing religion as well. This should not be about "defending your religion" its about discussing different viewpoints...by your qualifications you are just as much a "loser" as he is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously...let us who want to discuss the points discuss them. And those that want to just call names....get out of here.

[katsuro0]

i think all the points have been discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and what i see from it is that people who follow religions can only claim that they have faith, and then they try to prove science wrong by using the same arguements that science uses agaisnt religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmm, kinda reminds me of the catholic church.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

face it. science = logic and reason that produces solid evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

religion = myths and stories to help satisfy our curious brains.

[Guest GhostRanger]

i think all the points have been discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and what i see from it is that people who follow religions can only claim that they have faith, and then they try to prove science wrong by using the same arguements that science uses agaisnt religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmm, kinda reminds me of the catholic church.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

face it. science = logic and reason that produces solid evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

religion = myths and stories to help satisfy our curious brains.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't take you seriously if you didn't even respond to my first rebuttle of your original post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You clearly don't have enough knowledge on this subject. There are plenty of theologians who believe that science AND religion work together and don't discredit each other. Who is to say that God didn't create the laws of physics? They don't necessarily discredit each other.

[katsuro0]

ya buddy, try and read my original post? i clearly said that the only possibiliity of there being a god was at the very beginning. all this 'worship me! you dont even know who i am ahahah!' is what im saying is a load of bull.

[Guest GhostRanger]

ya buddy, try and read my original post? i clearly said that the only possibiliity of there being a god was at the very beginning. all this 'worship me! you dont even know who i am ahahah!' is what im saying is a load of bull.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I read your post and I refuted it very meticulously...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That doesn't make sense. If there was a god, why would he have left? And if he created you and is the very reason you can live every minute that you do and he wants you to worship him...why not?

[katsuro0]

also didn't say that there was a god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ill take science over religion anyday. the only thing religion is good for is setting moral standards, and even the church can be currupt...different story though.

[Guest GhostRanger]

also didn't say that there was a god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ill take science over religion anyday. the only thing religion is good for is setting moral standards, and even the church can be currupt...different story though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was referring to you saying that you could accept the possibility of god a the beginning but not worshipping him. You made that point clear and I was responding to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you ignore me when I said that science and religion can easily coexist?

[katsuro0]

science and religion deffenitly cannot coexist lol...just take a western civilization course.

[Guest GhostRanger]

science and religion deffenitly cannot coexist lol...just take a western civilization course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Show me how they can't. I've taken several courses like that, and as a devout Christian and someone who respects and believes in the physical laws of this world...show me how they can't coexist.

[katsuro0]

just look at this whole topic =\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but whatever, i'm going to bed. ill get back to u tomorrow