religion

[Myweponsg00d]

It is so pathetically sad as well, seeing as 'robot guy's arguement was what I was gonna use to bash religion. Here's my arguement:

 

Let's say you woke up one day, and had 2 people coming up to you, explaining how life was created. The first guy (a christian) tells you that one guy with a beard created everything and everyone in his image, and although he doesn't have proof, he still continues to believe this. The second guy (an athiest/purist) says that life occurred through evolution, a process in which all different species adapted to their surroundings. For proof, he brings an encyclopedia. Who are you more inclined to believe?

 

Isn't it confusing when they use arguments that actually are more effective when aimed at religion?

 

For example, I was incorrectly accused of using an appeal to ridicule argument, when in reality the main argument many creationists make is an appeal to ridicule.

[sees_all1]

You act like we don't have perfectly reasonable scientific explanations for how stars, planets, and life have come to exist.

 

What would you like explained? The formation of stars? Atoms? The evolution of life? We've most of it down completely. I insist that you stop referring to this stuff as random chance; there was nothing random about it. Well, there may be somewhat random elements, but I wouldnt say it happened by chance.

"We have absolutely no f-ing idea" is not a "perfectly reasonable" scientific explanation.

How did the Universe come to exist? Where did matter, gravity, electromagnetic forces and nuclear forces come from? You have no idea, but you act as if science has explained it all. Hell, the particle accelerator at Cern is looking for a "God" particle - something that gives matter mass. That's not an explanation.

 

How did life come to be? You act that evolution through genetic variation explains everything, yet you fail to understand that without life there can be no evolution, and that the first life form to appear would have no genetic variation. Furthermore, there are huge gaps in basic scientific explanations. A good example would be examining several organelles within a cell, such as the mitochondria. The first life forms used anaerobic chemical reactions to provide energy, and somewhere they developed mitochondria to react with oxygen to produce more energy. The best hypothesis to explain this were that the mitochondria were separate organisms, and the larger cells "ate" them, to form a symbiotic relationship. Great explanation.

[Nadril]

What I don't get is what makes Christianity a more "believable" means of explaining the world compared to the thousands of other religions that have been around? What I don't get is that you have people, very smart people, trying to find all of these scientific reasonings behind the bible when it was written in a time when those things were not known. I just don't see what makes Christianity so different from any other religion as just like any other religion it was a means of explaining the unknown.

 

Yes, we don't know everything. I would wager we know very little in fact. However my first thought isn't to jump to one ancient explanation of why the world is how it is. I mean essentially I think a lot of these theologists are just trying to find scientific meaning where there isn't and, quite honestly, shouldn't be.

 

I'm an athiest mostly because I don't like this idea of trying to stand behind one religion in what seems like a 1 in a million chance. Any one of these religions "could" be right, and how could you prove them wrong? I would much prefer it if people stopped worshiping what they think is there and focus on what is here and on finding what is out there. I think that being so hard-fast on an answer that must be true (in this case: a Christian god) isn't the way to really go about things.

 

So yeah, I just think the idea of Religion is outdated.

 

 

Also I wanted to say that these debates on the forums (or should I say "debates") are ridiculous. It's nothing but two parties trying to come up with the most off-the-wall metaphor to explain why their side is correct. In the end you guys are arguing about some things that we don't know for certain.

[sephiroth_king]

"We have absolutely no f-ing idea" is not a "perfectly reasonable" scientific explanation.

 

It's not meant to be a "scientific explanation" more than it is a testament to how we don't know and won't assume something else until we accumulate proof/ a better understanding.

 

Also, evolution doesn't so much deal with the origins of life as does abiogenesis. Evolution simply describes the evolution from the beginning to different species and how they adapted through natural selection.

[Myweponsg00d]

You act like we don't have perfectly reasonable scientific explanations for how stars, planets, and life have come to exist.

 

What would you like explained? The formation of stars? Atoms? The evolution of life? We've most of it down completely. I insist that you stop referring to this stuff as random chance; there was nothing random about it. Well, there may be somewhat random elements, but I wouldnt say it happened by chance.

"We have absolutely no f-ing idea" is not a "perfectly reasonable" scientific explanation.

How did the Universe come to exist? Where did matter, gravity, electromagnetic forces and nuclear forces come from? You have no idea, but you act as if science has explained it all. Hell, the particle accelerator at Cern is looking for a "God" particle - something that gives matter mass. That's not an explanation.

 

So you are suggesting that every time we figure something out, we say "Okay, I guess God doesnt actually explain this, but it will explain whatever we don't know now!"

 

Reasonable.

 

How did life come to be? You act that evolution through genetic variation explains everything, yet you fail to understand that without life there can be no evolution, and that the first life form to appear would have no genetic variation.

 

Again this simply isn't true. The RNA in the first lifeform is just as suseptible to genetic variation as any other lifeform. I don't know where you got this "The first lifeform couldn't have varried" bullcrap from but it simply isn't true.

 

Also we have many explanations for how life could have originated. What we don't know is how life specifically originated on Earth, like, the historical truth. You act like biologists are standing around and saying "WTF?!?! Where does teh life comes from?!!!!!?!?!" We have plenty of explanations for how life can come to be, we just aren't yet sure of which story is historically accurate for Earth specifically.

 

Furthermore, there are huge gaps in basic scientific explanations. A good example would be examining several organelles within a cell, such as the mitochondria. The first life forms used anaerobic chemical reactions to provide energy, and somewhere they developed mitochondria to react with oxygen to produce more energy. The best hypothesis to explain this were that the mitochondria were separate organisms, and the larger cells "ate" them, to form a symbiotic relationship. Great explanation.

 

More appeal to ridicule. You think the formation of a symbiotic relationship is implausible, and your substitute theory is that a man in the sky made some hocus pocus and forced life to exist? Why is your intelligent design theory any more plausible?

 

And what the hell is your theory on God anyway? That he set things into motion and then let them happen...but then intervened at random times? You think he let the Earth form all by itself...but then life simply couldn't have come without divine intervention? You think he then let life evolve, but intervened to give humans intelligence? Why is it that you think God simply happens to fill the gaps of current accepted scientific truth?

 

50 years from now are you going to adapt your God theory to just explain whatever it is that we dont know then?

[Saru Inc]

This topic is such a waste of pixels.

 

I've also got to say, I love how friendly this entire debate is.

 

 

That being said, the world needs religion, whether its correct or not; true or not.

[Nadril]

That being said, the world needs religion, whether its correct or not; true or not.

 

Why? (this isn't me being snarky, I'm curious.)

[Myweponsg00d]

This topic is such a waste of pixels.

 

I've also got to say, I love how friendly this entire debate is.

 

 

That being said, the world needs religion, whether its correct or not; true or not.

 

The world needs morality. You can have morality without having some belief that things in the physical world are being manipulated by a puppet-master.

[Nenga]

You act like we don't have perfectly reasonable scientific explanations for how stars, planets, and life have come to exist.

 

What would you like explained? The formation of stars? Atoms? The evolution of life? We've most of it down completely. I insist that you stop referring to this stuff as random chance; there was nothing random about it. Well, there may be somewhat random elements, but I wouldnt say it happened by chance.

"We have absolutely no f-ing idea" is not a "perfectly reasonable" scientific explanation.

How did the Universe come to exist? Where did matter, gravity, electromagnetic forces and nuclear forces come from? You have no idea, but you act as if science has explained it all. Hell, the particle accelerator at Cern is looking for a "God" particle - something that gives matter mass. That's not an explanation.

Yes, indeed a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation is "It was god." You act as if we have no clue what the start of the universe was, like we don't even have a guess.

 

Ok so we have theories, what sets a god aside from a theory? What makes god real and not just another theory that someone threw out there? Saying "god did it" is the easy way out, you can say it, and not have to think about it again. The existence of god seems to be based on the lack of evidence otherwise. If I say i'm Barrack Obama, would you believe me? No, you'd ask me to prove it, the only reason you don't take proof that there isn't a god is that "He works in mysterious ways" and we can't comprehend what god is. Of course if we proved there was a god, it'd be accepted, but there can never be any proof to disprove god.

 

That's the reason that this debate will never end though, since god "works in mysterious ways" we can't disprove him in your eyes.

 

That being said, the world needs religion, whether its correct or not; true or not.

 

Why? (this isn't me being snarky, I'm curious.)

Religion sets our morals, and it's what we were taught for the most part. Regardless of if you believe in god or not, you still hold true to the morals that were taught to you from religion. I believe at heart, most people in the world are [wagon], and they need that moral system. Every organized religion has always been a set of morals in a book. Don't kill random people, don't defile the gods' temple, etc. What was important to that society.

[Dizzle229]

*gah, I told myself I wouldn't get involved*

 

If religion sets your morals, then there's something wrong here. I don't need religion to tell me that it's wrong to randomly turn to the person next to me and beat them to death with their own jaw bone. Religions also seem to often forget about their morals, if it serves their own purposes. And I say their morals, as there is no one correct set of morals.

[sephiroth_king]

Religion sets our morals, and it's what we were taught for the most part. Regardless of if you believe in god or not, you still hold true to the morals that were taught to you from religion. I believe at heart, most people in the world are [wagon], and they need that moral system. Every organized religion has always been a set of morals in a book. Don't kill random people, don't defile the gods' temple, etc. What was important to that society.

 

People set morals, not Religion. For example, Let's say Christian in todays world followed the Bible to the very core. Every last person who considered themselves a Christian or a believer in God or Christ followed the Bible to the last bt of ink. If this were the case, the believers would have to kill sodomites, incestual people, women would have absolutely no rights still, slavery would exist, etc. Yet, these beliefs, which were once indeed followed, are abolished as cave man theology by people today. When humanity realizes not to fear authority, then they begin to determine what is truly right and wrong.

 

Religion can be credited with mass control of people via moral standards laid out by their respective Gods, but throughout time it seems secularism has always triumphed against horrific ideals simply because they are horrific.

 

Most religions seem to adapt to what the people believe and feel is right in order to stop people from going astray; Christianity does this a lot (set aside a few sects today). Morality can be debated to the end of time, but no Morality is wholeheartedly true unless we will it. This is why personally I don't believe in good or evil, as they are simply just labels.

 

Also, as a quick addition, the religious morality system seems to be set in place so people will be rewarded for their good deeds in the afterlife, rather than doing good for the sake of doing good. Personally, I haven't known a lot of Christians that do good for the sake of it rather than to be rewarded for their actions. Take my sibling, for example, who vehemently opposes scientific ideas and homosexuality because her Bible demands it, rather than setting her own moral standard. And because she follows it, she'll be rewarded. She even looks at me and snubbingly tells me that she feels sorry for me because I'll burn.

[sees_all1]

And what the hell is your theory on God anyway? That he set things into motion and then let them happen...but then intervened at random times? You think he let the Earth form all by itself...but then life simply couldn't have come without divine intervention? You think he then let life evolve, but intervened to give humans intelligence? Why is it that you think God simply happens to fill the gaps of current accepted scientific truth?

 

50 years from now are you going to adapt your God theory to just explain whatever it is that we dont know then?

I believe that God designed the universe, and everything in it at the beginning (all the initial conditions that were just so perfect). Then He formed the universe, and let everything begin to work. I believe that there have been limited times of direct intervention, usually as miracles (and things that are seen as random, highly improbable or extraordinary certainly qualify). I believe that science explains how, and religion explains why.

I also feel like asking "how, how, how, how, how" is pointless, because its missing the big picture. You can't see the forest for its trees.

 

 

EDIT:

If this were the case, the believers would have to kill sodomites, incestual people, women would have absolutely no rights still, slavery would exist, etc. Yet, these beliefs, which were once indeed followed, are abolished as cave man theology by people today.

You really should read the New Testament. There's a lot of good stuff in there, and you'd fix your gross misconceptions.

[sephiroth_king]

EDIT:

If this were the case, the believers would have to kill sodomites, incestual people, women would have absolutely no rights still, slavery would exist, etc. Yet, these beliefs, which were once indeed followed, are abolished as cave man theology by people today.

You really should read the New Testament. There's a lot of good stuff in there, and you'd fix your gross misconceptions.

 

So, disregard the old testament for the new? To put it bluntly, screw that. I'll read both as to what those medieval beliefs are. Also, I've read the Bible multiple times, went to a Catholic School where my Faith was destroyed which led me to read it multiple times, and I know for a fact that the New Testament is just as full of crap as the old testament. And when I say crap, I mean, in my opinion, immoral crap. For example, Jesus' Sermon on The Mount, which is looked at usually as "good" when looked at theologically, but when looked at in depth is just kind of sad.

 

The Iron Chariots Wiki Is a good place to find lots of counter-apologetics stuff, among it the Sermon on the Mount.

 

By the way, there is no misconception just because one Testament says different things from the other. If there are two testaments, one should study them both, not look at one and snub it because it says a few bad things. But as I've said before, the New Testament isn't up to par either.

 

You can't see the forest for the trees.

 

"And you can't smell your own [cabbage] on your knees." -Marilyn Manson, The Beautiful People (Lol, just being a wise-ass here really)

[sees_all1]

By the way, there is no misconception just because one Testament says different things from the other. If there are two testaments, one should study them both, not look at one and snub it because it says a few bad things. But as I've said before, the New Testament isn't up to par either.

If you're still hung up on the Old Testament, you've really missed the point.

[sephiroth_king]

If you're still hung up on the Old Testament, you've really missed the point.

 

And what, prey tell, is the point? That Jesus is the savior, the all good, and the New Testament is canon whilst the Old Testament is canon-fodder?

 

Sorry, the New Testament isn't all good either.

 

No, you have. You've decided to completely disregard the origins of your own religion (if you're a Christian) and inherently take in the teachings of Christ, which are again not all that good either. That's the problem: picking and choosing. The point is to read it all and consider it, lest you simply just ignorantly push aside all of the bad for the bliss. Picking and choosing is just a mechanism for a believer to decide what they don't want to hear and what they do. Too many people I know do that. But please (and I mean this politely, I don't mean to come off like a jackass, which I inevitably will do) don't tell me to read the New Testament as if I haven't read it and then tell me to stop being hung up on the Old Testament. Read and take in both or be ignorant. And personally, I'll take in both. You do as you please.

[sees_all1]

And what, prey tell, is the point? That Jesus is the savior, the all good, and the New Testament is canon whilst the Old Testament is canon-fodder?

[hide=Specifically two passages come to mind]

Matthew 15:1-9 (New International Version' date=' ©2010)

 

Matthew 15

That Which Defiles

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They dont wash their hands before they eat!

 

3 Jesus replied, And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, Honor your father and mother[a'] and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is devoted to God, 6 they are not to honor their father or mother with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

 

8 These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

9 They worship me in vain;

their teachings are merely human rules.[c]

Acts 15:1-29 (New International Version' date=' ©2010)

 

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved. 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

 

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.

 

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

 

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. Brothers, he said, listen to me. 14 Simon[a'] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

 

16 After this I will return

and rebuild Davids fallen tent.

Its ruins I will rebuild,

and I will restore it,

17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,

even all the Gentiles who bear my name,

says the Lord, who does these things

18 things known from long ago.[c]

 

19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.

The Councils Letter to Gentile Believers

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:

 

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

 

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

 

Greetings.

 

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

 

Farewell.

[/hide]

[sephiroth_king]

[hide=Specifically two passages come to mind]

Matthew 15:1-9 (New International Version' date=' ©2010)

 

Matthew 15

That Which Defiles

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

 

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a'] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

 

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

9 They worship me in vain;

their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”

Acts 15:1-29 (New International Version' date=' ©2010)

 

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

 

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

 

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

 

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a'] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

 

16 “‘After this I will return

and rebuild David’s fallen tent.

Its ruins I will rebuild,

and I will restore it,

17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,

even all the Gentiles who bear my name,

says the Lord, who does these things’—

18 things known from long ago.[c]

 

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:

 

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

 

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

 

Greetings.

 

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

 

Farewell.

[/hide]

 

That has Old Testament references in it, though. I have some disagreeable quotes from the New Testament that I have marked in my defiled bible. :P

 

[Hide=My Rebuttal]

 

I'll be jumping around as I flick through random passages, so bare with me.

 

Jesus on Not Abolishing the Old Testament Law:

 

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Jesus abdicates killing:

 

Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

 

Jesus abdicating Child abuse:

 

For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you

 

Wait, didn't you use that one? :P Also see: Mark 7:9

 

For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

 

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

 

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing.

 

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not.

 

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy.

 

Slaves Obeying Their Masters:

 

"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse."

 

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ.

 

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them.

 

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

 

‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. ‘I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds. But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them—I place no other burden on you. Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come. He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father;and I will give him the morning star. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

[/hide]

 

Among other random passages.

 

And of course, most of those things we don't follow because they are bronze age mythology and we have learned to be more secular in our thinking. But why pick and choose? No, usually I know the answer: because its a comfort zone, a security blanket. ignore the old and in with the new--which still gives bad advice with a mixture of good things to say (that steals from other Religions like Hinduism).

 

I would also just like to point out that the Old Testament isn't necessarily defunct just because some passages said so because, again, Jesus didn't exactly care to bring down the old law and had some twisted beliefs in regards to slavery and the such. He did have a lot of good things to say, but then again a lot of what Jesus has said is reflected upon religions older than Jesus.

 

The Old Testament shows the rudimentary and vicious, savage God who seemed bloodthirsty and violent throughout the old book. The New Testament shows the other side to appeal to people in my opinion. The only conclusion I can make is that this book was written by a few to control the many, and to do that they had to make a nice, forgiving savior.

 

But both contain contradictions and unjust things that should be examined carefully, as even things that seem just may not even be at all in my opinion. (Like I said, the Sermon On The Mount as an example.)

 

Nite everyone. See you tomorrow. :)

[Nenga]

You guys seem to misinterpret what I meant. Nad asked why we need religion, while we don't need religion, the morals are what we take away from it. We don't need religion to teach morals, but it's a collection of what we hold as morals. As for the things that talk about slavery, and etc. The constitution mentions slavery as well, but we don't have slavery anymore. It happened with the bible, it happens with current documents, we sort of just X out certain parts.

 

The question was asked and I answered it, the answer may not have necessarily applied to me, after all i'm not religious, and it may not have applied to you, but that does not mean it wasn't the correct answer. You still do follow the morals of whatever religion you were raised, whether you believe it anymore or not.

[Myweponsg00d]

And what the hell is your theory on God anyway? That he set things into motion and then let them happen...but then intervened at random times? You think he let the Earth form all by itself...but then life simply couldn't have come without divine intervention? You think he then let life evolve, but intervened to give humans intelligence? Why is it that you think God simply happens to fill the gaps of current accepted scientific truth?

 

50 years from now are you going to adapt your God theory to just explain whatever it is that we dont know then?

I believe that God designed the universe, and everything in it at the beginning (all the initial conditions that were just so perfect). Then He formed the universe, and let everything begin to work. I believe that there have been limited times of direct intervention, usually as miracles (and things that are seen as random, highly improbable or extraordinary certainly qualify). I believe that science explains how, and religion explains why.

I also feel like asking "how, how, how, how, how" is pointless, because its missing the big picture. You can't see the forest for its trees.

 

 

So you just said that science should answer "how?" questions. Therefore, shouldn't "How did life begin on Earth?" and "How did the universe begin?" be answered by science?

[sees_all1]

So you just said that science should answer "how?" questions. Therefore, shouldn't "How did life begin on Earth?" and "How did the universe begin?" be answered by science?

Science has answered "How did life begin on Earth" - given a bunch of initial conditions, along with a spark and basic proteins were able to form, organize, and start reproducing. That's all well and good, except it leaves everything up to too much chance, its too random.

 

Science will never be able to answer "How did the universe begin" unless they can observe another appear out of nowhere, especially because the experiments they set up require initial conditions, require matter to be present, where we know that couldn't have been the case before matter.

 

Also, trying to answer those questions misses the basic point - the universe exists, why does it exist?

[Myweponsg00d]

So you just said that science should answer "how?" questions. Therefore, shouldn't "How did life begin on Earth?" and "How did the universe begin?" be answered by science?

Science has answered "How did life begin on Earth" - given a bunch of initial conditions, along with a spark and basic proteins were able to form, organize, and start reproducing. That's all well and good, except it leaves everything up to too much chance, its too random.

 

Again, I still don't know how you can think it is "too random". Since there are billions of billions of stars and billions of billions of planets, some of those planets are bound to exist just far enough away from their star so that life can exist.

 

Of those planets that are in the right area to support life, at least one of them is bound to see life, especially after millions or billions of years of pre-biological events occuring in the "primordial soup".

 

I just don't get your meaning of "random" or "chance". There seems nothing random about it to me. If life didn't appear here on Earth, it easily could have appeared on any other Earth-like planet.

 

Science will never be able to answer "How did the universe begin" unless they can observe another appear out of nowhere, especially because the experiments they set up require initial conditions, require matter to be present, where we know that couldn't have been the case before matter.

 

This simply isn't true. Theres no telling what sorts of scientific breakthroughs will allow us to obtain new knowledge about our surroundings. If you were alive 50,000 years ago you probably would be saying "Theres no way we will ever know what that great ball of fire in the sky is!". If you were alive 500 years ago youd probably be saying "Theres no way we will ever know how humans came to exist on this planet!" Knowledge always seems unobtainable until we obtain it. If we weren't perplexed by how to answer the question, then we would be able to answer it.

 

Also, trying to answer those questions misses the basic point - the universe exists, why does it exist?

 

Do you ask these questions about everything? Why does the photon have no mass? Why does the photon behave like a particle and a wave? Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Why is the electron's charge negative?

 

None of these natural phenomena have a motive behind them. They just happened. There are reasons for what caused these things to happen, but there isn't a philosophical justification for why these events occured. They just did. It is nature.

 

Why would there need to be an explanation for the philosophy of why the universe exists? It just exists.

[Zierro]

Also I wanted to say that these debates on the forums (or should I say "debates") are ridiculous. It's nothing but two parties trying to come up with the most off-the-wall metaphor to explain why their side is correct. In the end you guys are arguing about some things that we don't know for certain.

 

Yes, religious debates tend to get very political. Which is why I like to stay in the middle and point out the ridiculous arguments on both sides as an unbiased observer. And then I usually either get labeled a Godless heathen or a Flying Spaghetti Monster worshiper for questioning faulty logic and declaring the plain straight up reality of the situation: nobody knows. I guess agnostics just don't fit in.

 

Why would there need to be an explanation for the philosophy of why the universe exists? It just exists.

 

*by random chance

 

1. lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection

2. statistics

a. having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically: a random variable

b. chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected: random sampling

3. informal (of a person) unknown: some random guy waiting for a bus

 

If there's no prearranged order or definite plan for how the universe were to be made, then it simply occurred randomly.

 

Again, I still don't know how you can think it is "too random". Since there are billions of billions of stars and billions of billions of planets, some of those planets are bound to exist just far enough away from their star so that life can exist.

 

Sure, but that's still random. If I flipped one million coins, one of them is almost surely bound to be heads. Even so, it still comes down solely to random chance. It's really just another word for "nature doing it", unless you're going to argue that nature is not random.

 

PS: You still never answered about whether you fully reject the idea of Santa Claus or not.

 

This simply isn't true. Theres no telling what sorts of scientific breakthroughs will allow us to obtain new knowledge about our surroundings. If you were alive 50,000 years ago you probably would be saying "Theres no way we will ever know what that great ball of fire in the sky is!". If you were alive 500 years ago youd probably be saying "Theres no way we will ever know how humans came to exist on this planet!" Knowledge always seems unobtainable until we obtain it. If we weren't perplexed by how to answer the question, then we would be able to answer it.

 

While it is true that we don't know what we'll discover until we discover it, Sees All has a strong point. We'd need to create a whole new universe from scratch in order to demonstrate how it came to be, and even if we were successful and able to replicate it, since we, intelligent beings, would be working from our already existing universe, we wouldn't know how a universe could exist without already having one first and without having intelligent beings on the team. It's really just a silly question.

[Myweponsg00d]

*by random chance

 

1. lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection

2. statistics

a. having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically: a random variable

b. chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected: random sampling

3. informal (of a person) unknown: some random guy waiting for a bus

 

If there's no prearranged order or definite plan for how the universe were to be made, then it simply occurred randomly.

 

By that definition, then yes the universe was a random event. But I don't think thats how people are using the term...

 

For example, you flip 5 coins, and you see that 2 of them come up heads. You then look at these and say "Look! It came out randomly? Its too random, God did it!" CGF is using the idea of "random" to somehow imply that the event is unrealistic, illogical, or improbable.

 

Sure, but that's still random. If I flipped one million coins, one of them is almost surely bound to be heads. Even so, it still comes down solely to random chance. It's really just another word for "nature doing it", unless you're going to argue that nature is not random.

Addressed above

PS: You still never answered about whether you fully reject the idea of Santa Claus or not.

I do not fully reject any idea with 100% certainty.

 

While it is true that we don't know what we'll discover until we discover it, Sees All has a strong point. We'd need to create a whole new universe from scratch in order to demonstrate how it came to be, and even if we were successful and able to replicate it, since we, intelligent beings, would be working from our already existing universe, we wouldn't know how a universe could exist without already having one first and without having intelligent beings on the team. It's really just a silly question.

 

This is like saying we won't be able to figure out where humans came from unless we can recreate all of evolution in a lab experiment just to make sure.

 

Theres no telling what kinds of cosmological evidence might be out there that helps us trace back to the universe's origins.

[obfuscator]

*by random chance

 

1. lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection

2. statistics

a. having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically: a random variable

b. chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected: random sampling

3. informal (of a person) unknown: some random guy waiting for a bus

 

If there's no prearranged order or definite plan for how the universe were to be made, then it simply occurred randomly.

 

By that definition, then yes the universe was a random event. But I don't think thats how people are using the term...

 

For example, you flip 5 coins, and you see that 2 of them come up heads. You then look at these and say "Look! It came out randomly? Its too random, God did it!" CGF is using the idea of "random" to somehow imply that the event is unrealistic, illogical, or improbable.

 

 

All he's trying to do is call a horse a horse - random is random, and if you believe that there is no creator or higher being then the universe cannot have been anything but random.

 

I don't know if I'd call it unrealistic or illogical, but certainly it is highly improbable.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

*by random chance

 

1. lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection

2. statistics

a. having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically: a random variable

b. chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected: random sampling

3. informal (of a person) unknown: some random guy waiting for a bus

 

If there's no prearranged order or definite plan for how the universe were to be made, then it simply occurred randomly.

 

By that definition, then yes the universe was a random event. But I don't think thats how people are using the term...

 

For example, you flip 5 coins, and you see that 2 of them come up heads. You then look at these and say "Look! It came out randomly? Its too random, God did it!" CGF is using the idea of "random" to somehow imply that the event is unrealistic, illogical, or improbable.

 

 

All he's trying to do is call a horse a horse - random is random, and if you believe that there is no creator or higher being then the universe cannot have been anything but random.

 

I don't know if I'd call it unrealistic or illogical, but certainly it is highly improbable.

 

Random implies that every step of the process is equally random, which is far from the case. Once the earth was formed, for instance, life evolving was much more likely given certain aspects of primitive earth.

The universe as it exists today makes a lot of sense based on the laws of nature.

 

The fact is that there's no solid evidence that there was any higher power at work.