Anesthesia Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Pianofrieak2, your reasoning only works if you are ALREADY a christian. Some people are changed by being a moderator. I wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianofrieak2 Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 If you believe in the existence of a higher being, then those odds don't seem very good to me. As compared to not believing in any...the odds are 0. Evolution already has no evolutionary transitional fossils. The Miller-Urey experiment has already been refuted for itscombination of amino acids to proteins... What more evidence do you need to not believe in evolution? I'm currently transitioning from a Wizard to a Mage and a Priest to an Archpriest. Lol both are nonexistant in the top 25. Hopefully I can change that. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anesthesia Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 (u)ID is a theory based entirely on LACK of evidence. Some people are changed by being a moderator. I wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 If you believe in the existence of a higher being, then those odds don't seem very good to me. As compared to not believing in any...the odds are 0. Evolution already has no evolutionary transitional fossils. The Miller-Urey experiment has already been refuted for itscombination of amino acids to proteins... What more evidence do you need to not believe in evolution? Just because an experiment has been refuted doesn't mean the entire theory is wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearofthunder Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 As compared to not believing in any...the odds are 0. Evolution already has no evolutionary transitional fossils. The Miller-Urey experiment has already been refuted for itscombination of amino acids to proteins... What more evidence do you need to not believe in evolution? No, the odds are not 0. There are no odds because there is no heaven or hell. The fact that all religions contradict each other and each one claims to be the sole, correct one, coupled with the similarities between each religion's methods of attempting to convert non-believers, gather in groups, and forming a concensus to discriminate against certain ideals show me that religion is not truly supernatural. It is merely a human condition (similar to the human needs for companionship, success, etc). There is nothing wrong with Christianity or any other religion, but their followers have reached far beyond the sensible boundary in trying to interpret their faith. also, 1. There are plenty of transitional fossils, including the fish that can walk on land, which was recently discovered. 2. The Miller-Urey is not the only experiment on the origin of life. It was done in 1953, which was 53 years ago. Since then, there have been many other experiments that modify and correct what was wrong with the Miller-Urey hypothesis (something ID can't do), which is what real science is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icantcmyeye Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 THIS POST IS JUST MY OPINION --- I AM NOT TRYING TO OFFEND ANYONE WITH FAITH OR RELIGIOUS BELIEF I personally am an athiest. I was raised jewish, and i accept the teachings of the torah, i just do not believe that there is a god. In my opinion, organized religion was started at a highly turbulent time in our worlds history as an attempt to teach good morals. societies were just beginning to form, and people were not neccesarily the kindest. Also, great confusion rained due to people beginning to question things like "where did we come from", or the debate "what happens when we die". religion was powerfull because it gave people the answers. People were comforted to know they had a savior looking over them or a holy diety protecting them. However, we have entered a very interesting time. Science is beggining to be able to answer the questions that could not be answered some thousands of years ago. because of this, our religious leaders are calling for science to be ignored and frowned upon. You cannot answer every question in life with "god did it". if you did, then society would not be able to advance in any way, shape or form. you cannot tell science to leave things alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my_pet_worm Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 But why should I believe your version of events over the Hindu version? or the Buddhist version? Because they have things proving them wrong. Even Catholic religion has been proved wrong by it's own bible, seeing how could virgin Mary be a virgin if Jesus had brothers? However, we have entered a very interesting time. Science is beggining to be able to answer the questions that could not be answered some thousands of years ago. because of this, our religious leaders are calling for science to be ignored and frowned upon. I'm a christian, yet I still believe in most on science's things. The only thing it does that goes against christianity is the beggining, which is a science theory anyway, and evolution of from cells-to fish- to monkeys- to humans. Yea I do think we evolutionised somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my_pet_worm Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 double post.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearofthunder Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 But why should I believe your version of events over the Hindu version? or the Buddhist version? Because they have things proving them wrong. Even Catholic religion has been proved wrong by it's own bible, seeing how could virgin Mary be a virgin if Jesus had brothers? Actually, it's the other way around. Prostestantism says Jesus has brothers. Catholicism says Jesus was an only child. But that's beside the point. All religions contradict within themselves and with each other, so each one's promotion of itself as the only true religion is all the more evidence that religion was merely created by humans to fullfill a human need. I'm a christian, yet I still believe in most on science's things. The only thing it does that goes against christianity is the beggining, which is a science theory anyway, and evolution of from cells-to fish- to monkeys- to humans. Yea I do think we evolutionised somewhere. I cannot fathom why many people do not understand the definition of the word "theory." A theory is not a suggestion. A theory has been tested continuously through real-world experiments and goes along with a fact. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation. So, Fact = apple falls to earth Theory = theory of gravitation "But why can't you say" Fact = apple falls to earth Theory = god made it so Because "god made it so" cannot be tested in experiments, so it is not a theory. However, theory of gravitation has been tested in experiments, so it is a theory. A statement does not become a "scientific theory" merely because it uses scientific vocabulary or points out inconsistencies in its competitors. In order for something to become a scientific theory, it must offer itself as proof through multiple experiments held over time, without citing any external origins (the bible, the quran, etc). This is why evolution and the big bang are scientific theories, but intelligent design is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 But why should I believe your version of events over the Hindu version? or the Buddhist version? Because they have things proving them wrong. Even Catholic religion has been proved wrong by it's own bible, seeing how could virgin Mary be a virgin if Jesus had brothers? Because Jesus was the oldest? :lol: Seems kind of easy to figure out. When Mary was a virgin, she had Jesus. Jesus had brothers. Therefore Jesus was firstborn. The focus isn't that Mary was always a virgin, the focus is on the virgin birth, hence Mary being "Virgin Mary". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Of course the issue of Mary being an actual virgin or just a mistranslation for young woman is also one for discussion ;) Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Of course the issue of Mary being an actual virgin or just a mistranslation for young woman is also one for discussion ;) A mistranslation? It's the point to Jesus' birth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anesthesia Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 ...So of course it is beyond scrutiny. Some people are changed by being a moderator. I wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 ...So of course it is beyond scrutiny. I assume that was directed towards my post, if not ignore the next part. I'm not saying it's beyond scutiny, but that's like saying that Jesus being crucified was "mistranslated." I'm also not saying you should believe she gave birth as a virgin because obviously it's a part of Christianity. But to say that the reason that Jesus' birth was special was mistranslated is just silly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 ...So of course it is beyond scrutiny. I assume that was directed towards my post, if not ignore the next part. I'm not saying it's beyond scutiny, but that's like saying that Jesus being crucified was "mistranslated." I'm also not saying you should believe she gave birth as a virgin because obviously it's a part of Christianity. But to say that the reason that Jesus' birth was special was mistranslated is just silly... Yet... Before you try and make the claim you are, I recommend doing a little more research on that scripture and what it actually says. The word "day" does not translate to mean what our version of the word day means. Wouldn't it be silly to say that God didn't make the universe in 7, 24h days (he doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need 7 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ to create the universe since he is all powerful); it would be a much more significant feat then 7 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. You use the translation argument only when it pleases you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 ...So of course it is beyond scrutiny. I assume that was directed towards my post, if not ignore the next part. I'm not saying it's beyond scutiny, but that's like saying that Jesus being crucified was "mistranslated." I'm also not saying you should believe she gave birth as a virgin because obviously it's a part of Christianity. But to say that the reason that Jesus' birth was special was mistranslated is just silly... Yet... Before you try and make the claim you are, I recommend doing a little more research on that scripture and what it actually says. The word "day" does not translate to mean what our version of the word day means. Wouldn't it be silly to say that God didn't make the universe in 7, 24h days (he doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need 7 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ to create the universe since he is all powerful); it would be a much more significant feat then 7 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. You use the translation argument only when it pleases you. It could have been 7 days, but the word "day" that is used in the text does not necessarily translate to accurately mean a 24 hour period. That's just how it is... the verses about Mary do translate to say that she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. It's not when it pleases me, it's when it says what it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugATree Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 But why should I believe your version of events over the Hindu version? or the Buddhist version? Because they have things proving them wrong. Even Catholic religion has been proved wrong by it's own bible, seeing how could virgin Mary be a virgin if Jesus had brothers? This is like saying the age of the earth and the first human remains proves christianity wrong. People just explain/make excuses to make it consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 But why should I believe your version of events over the Hindu version? or the Buddhist version? Because they have things proving them wrong. Even Catholic religion has been proved wrong by it's own bible, seeing how could virgin Mary be a virgin if Jesus had brothers? This is like saying the age of the earth and the first human remains proves christianity wrong. People just explain/make excuses to make it consistent. The Virgin Mary bit is related to Jesus' Virgin Birth not the fact that Mary never had hot monkey sex... ...But anyway, Flying Spaghetti Monster Owns ALL!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cupcake Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 it is because... Jesus is cool okay?? you can walk over water if you are as cool as him. Which you are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugATree Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 But why should I believe your version of events over the Hindu version? or the Buddhist version? Because they have things proving them wrong. Even Catholic religion has been proved wrong by it's own bible, seeing how could virgin Mary be a virgin if Jesus had brothers? This is like saying the age of the earth and the first human remains proves christianity wrong. People just explain/make excuses to make it consistent. The Virgin Mary bit is related to Jesus' Virgin Birth not the fact that Mary never had hot monkey sex... Never said anything about it. I'm was addressing the claim Hinduism and Buddhism has been proven wrong, using the same logic so has Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 But why should I believe your version of events over the Hindu version? or the Buddhist version? Because they have things proving them wrong. Even Catholic religion has been proved wrong by it's own bible, seeing how could virgin Mary be a virgin if Jesus had brothers? This is like saying the age of the earth and the first human remains proves christianity wrong. People just explain/make excuses to make it consistent. The Virgin Mary bit is related to Jesus' Virgin Birth not the fact that Mary never had hot monkey sex... Never said anything about it. I'm was addressing the claim Hinduism and Buddhism has been proven wrong, using the same logic so has Christianity. But your point is wrong. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Therefore, she was the Virgin Mary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 But why should I believe your version of events over the Hindu version? or the Buddhist version? Because they have things proving them wrong. Even Catholic religion has been proved wrong by it's own bible, seeing how could virgin Mary be a virgin if Jesus had brothers? This is like saying the age of the earth and the first human remains proves christianity wrong. People just explain/make excuses to make it consistent. The Virgin Mary bit is related to Jesus' Virgin Birth not the fact that Mary never had hot monkey ... Never said anything about it. I'm was addressing the claim Hinduism and Buddhism has been proven wrong, using the same logic so has Christianity. But your point is wrong. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Therefore, she was the Virgin Mary. No, that was my_pet_worm's point. HugATree's point was that, even if my_pet_worm was right (which he isn't) it still wouldn't prove Christianity wrong. "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 No, that was my_pet_worm's point. HugATree's point was that, even if my_pet_worm was right (which he isn't) it still wouldn't prove Christianity wrong. You're right...the quotes messed mem up. :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugATree Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Never said anything about it. I'm was addressing the claim Hinduism and Buddhism has been proven wrong, using the same logic so has Christianity. But your point is wrong. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Therefore, she was the Virgin Mary. My point is using the claim "the evidence disproves Hinduism and Buddhism", then the same applies to others including Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now