The bible

[Celt23]

 

1) Exactly, we can't figure out something and we say it's divine. Then we understand it. Then we reach another frontier of understanding and say it's divine. Repeat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2)I'd like some evidence that there's even any gods at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) That's what happens when you take drugs. That also has no evidence in it on the existenence of god(s). Only overreacting on the fact that no two expirements will produce similar results.

 

 

 

Ugh. I'm not saying there's evidence that Zeus exists. I'm saying that there's no possible way to ever say he doesn't exist. We can't ever know everything, especially not when it comes to supernatural debates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"You're on drugs". Cute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, did you even read the whole thing? I mean, it's practically impossible to not at least think there's something out there based on that data. What, are you some rebellious teenage atheist who's had too much "God" in her life from church, family and school? You seem stubborn to the extent of not even daring to look into the reasons why people believe in a God. It's like you're afraid to be proven wrong (not that I'm saying what I believe is 100% fact, it's no where close).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Evidence it's impossible to prove? Whenever I call Zeus I get dropped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) He shouldn't be writing these books and being so serious on these hallucinations, and go get some phsychiatric help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3)I read it and wasn't impressed. That's like saying singing rap while randomly chiseling a rock will produce more impressive results than singing rock while chiseling it. To the next sentance, no. I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Zeus, Osiris or Allah. I can go look up some data as to "why people believe in God".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT - Found some good data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem of Explaining Religion:

 

 

 

Religion is a pervasive and significant cultural phenomenon, so people who study culture and human nature have sought to explain the nature of religion, the nature of religious beliefs, and the reasons why religions exist in the first place. There have been as many theories as theorists, it seems, and while none fully captures what religion is, all offer important insights on the nature of religion and possible reasons why religion has persisted through human history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tylor & Frazer - Religion is Systematized Animism & Magic:

 

 

 

E.B. Tylor and James Frazer are two of the earliest researchers to develop theories of the nature of religion. They defined religion as essentially being the belief in spiritual beings, making it systematized animism. The reason religion exists is to help people make sense of events which would otherwise be incomprehensible by relying on unseen, hidden forces. This inadequately addresses the social aspect of religion, though, depicting religion and animism are purely intellectual moves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sigmund Freud - Religion is Mass Neurosis:

 

 

 

According to Sigmund Freud, religion is a mass neurosis and exists as a response to deep emotional conflicts and weaknesses. A by-product of psychological distress, Freud argued that it should be possible to eliminate the illusions of religion by alleviating that distress. This approach is laudable for getting us to recognize that there can be hidden psychological motives behind religion and religious beliefs, but his arguments from analogy are weak and too often his position is circular.

 

 

 

Emile Durkheim - Religion is a Means of Social Organization:

 

 

 

Emile Durkheim is responsible for the development of sociology and wrote that ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Å...religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Rebdragon]

1) Evidence it's impossible to prove? Whenever I call Zeus I get dropped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) He shouldn't be writing these books and being so serious on these hallucinations, and go get some phsychiatric help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3)I read it and wasn't impressed. That's like saying singing rap while randomly chiseling a rock will produce more impressive results than singing rock while chiseling it. To the next sentance, no. I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Zeus, Osiris or Allah. I can go look up some data as to "why people believe in God".

 

 

 

The man who wrote those books was a Japanese scientist for the Hado corporation. Not some deluded Bible preaching Christian (not that I have anything against the Bible). A scientist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, Zeus probably doesn't like you much :P . He usually doesn't respond to people other than his offspring, like King Iarbas (at least, according to man, which we know we can't trust). Man did Dido make a bad move on that one...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meh, I'll give it a couple years, seems like it'll take that long for you to open your mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Ah crap, we turned this into another "religion" and "does God exist?" debate. Eh, it was inevitable on a Bible thread I suppose... Lez attempt to get back on topic :? .

[Celt23]

Anyone can take drugs. Looks like this poor fellow is one of them.

[Rebdragon]

Anyone can take drugs. Looks like this poor fellow is one of them.

 

 

 

Who, Masaru Emoto? Or are you resorting to petty attacks?

[Celt23]

 

Anyone can take drugs. Looks like this poor fellow is one of them.

 

 

 

Who, Masaru Emoto? Or are you resorting to petty attacks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it just looks like he's hallucinating. I was never reffering to you...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read the edit in the above post will yeh.

[Rebdragon]

 

 

Anyone can take drugs. Looks like this poor fellow is one of them.

 

 

 

Who, Masaru Emoto? Or are you resorting to petty attacks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it just looks like he's hallucinating. I was never reffering to you...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read the edit in the above post will yeh.

 

 

 

Hallucinating in what way? In following scientific experimentation? It's not like he used just one crystal lol... there's mountains of evidence for Emoto's conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the edit, I don't know where you're going with that. I agree with it- it's why I threw away Christian beliefs as bull, and don't believe in Heaven or Hell, no matter how many religions say it exists. Still has nothing to do with my belief in a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ugh, getting way off topic here -.- .

[Celt23]

He totally overexaggerated. I can't believe he doesn't know that no two expirements will produce similar results. Like I said before, it's like chiseling a rock while singing rap and saying it produces better-looking results than chiseling it while singing rock.

[Satenza]

 

 

 

Hallucinating in what way? In following scientific experimentation? It's not like he used just one crystal lol... there's mountains of evidence for Emoto's conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just exactly what are his conclusions? That music which some humans beleive to be better than some other music causes water crystals to look different? How is that at all relevant to even evidence of a God? It's subjective music and phrases written down. I really don't see where you are coming from with this. So are you saying pretty water crystals being created beacuse listeneing to classical music and exposing it to postive phrases should make anyone beleive that at least a God can exists?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Water crystals form when i subject them to certain conditions.

 

 

 

2. They become even prettier when i expose them to nice phrases or classical music.

 

 

 

3. God exists because of this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole thing doesn't even suggest any type of God and if anything just a natural beauty.

[highlanders]

 

 

There is a ton of things in the bible that are obviously invented

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Care to offer ten examples? Should be easy if there's a "ton"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they say its the truth, while it obviously is not. Example; they say all the story about adam and eve, its obviously invented...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, care to offer some proof? Both Evolutionists and Creationists claim that there had to have been two people of opposite gender in order to reproduce. Both Adam and Eve are perfectly normal names. Your "obviously" seems to be less obvious than you claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding this Slowstorm. You're saying that since Adam and Eve are normal names, thier story is plausible? And as for Strowez, I'd like to see a source for what you claim please. Perhaps you may want to take a look at my topic 'the challenge' as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slow, what I claim is very obvious. Perhaps you're too stupid to see that.

 

 

 

In the bible they say Eve and Adam popped out of nowhere(created by god) then had children. Now with what we know thanks to science, its just outrageously obvious that's its not how things happened.

 

 

 

And as for examples of what was invented in the bible, take out your precious little book, choose a page by random, put your finger on a line, read it, thats a lie.

 

 

 

Heh, but if you want some precise examples, lets go for the obvious; water to wine, making bread and fish pop out of nowhere, the world created in 7 days, foreseeing the future, etc.

[issy2]

Slow, what I claim is very obvious. Perhaps you're too stupid to see that.

 

 

 

In the bible they say Eve and Adam popped out of nowhere(created by god) then had children. Now with what we know thanks to science, its just outrageously obvious that's its not how things happened.

 

 

 

And as for examples of what was invented in the bible, take out your precious little book, choose a page by random, put your finger on a line, read it, thats a lie.

 

 

 

Heh, but if you want some precise examples, lets go for the obvious; water to wine, making bread and fish pop out of nowhere, the world created in 7 days, foreseeing the future, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Someone's being ridiculously narrow-minded.

[X_Fat4lyfe_X]

 

 

 

That would suggest that the rules, laws, and ways of the so-called Christians six thousand years ago were based on the society they lived in, completely disregarding of moral right or wrong. Or it was written by someone extremely prejudiced and too caught up in their own culture to think for themselves.

 

 

 

On a technical note, Christians weren't around 6,000 years ago. Being a jew, I know that the "Old Testament" is full of writings that seem exaggerated, such as Sampson lifting the gates of a city on his back, and in the "Scroll of Esther" the evil Haman making stakes 50 meters high to hand his nemesis, the hero Mordochai. You can interpret the writings in different ways, and different people believe different things. Some people's evidence for god does not lie in writing, but lies on their personal experiences. Spirituality is a strange thing, and the debate of God's existence merely adds a mystical level to it.

 

 

 

Arguing over names of cave men is stupid. There is no way to know what Adam and Eve's names were. Take into account, that the Old Testament was written down many years after it happened, and it was oral tradition to pass down. The names "Adam" and Eve" were not their names, rather, it is a translation into English. For all we know, the Hebrew names for the two were not their original names at all.

[Tigra00]

Hmm...That's a nice little logical fallacy...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Science is by man, who is imperfect, therefor it can't be trusted." However, the Bible is ALSO from man, inspired by God or not, it's still from man. God wrote not a word in the Bible, and neither did Jesus, whom were both the only Heavenly beings ever to grace the Earth, random Angels not included. Interesting. The Bible can still be trusted somehow. Hmm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention how incredibly twisted the Church has made religion. Purgatory is made up, Christmas is made up, Easter is made up...Those three were all created to convert Pagans. Jesus is worshipped as God, even though the direct commandments from God say that only God is to be worshipped...It's all very messed up, and they wonder why noone wants to believe in it anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you imagine where it will be in 2,000 more years? I don't even want to think of it.

[Rebdragon]

Hmm...That's a nice little logical fallacy...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Science is by man, who is imperfect, therefor it can't be trusted." However, the Bible is ALSO from man, inspired by God or not, it's still from man. God wrote not a word in the Bible, and neither did Jesus, whom were both the only Heavenly beings ever to grace the Earth, random Angels not included. Interesting. The Bible can still be trusted somehow. Hmm.

 

 

 

But that's the problem. They claim it as the "Word of God", so they'd say you're argument was incorrect, or something like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the Fullmetal world was smart, they got rid of Christianity almost 400 years ago :wink: .

[highlanders]

 

Slow, what I claim is very obvious. Perhaps you're too stupid to see that.

 

 

 

In the bible they say Eve and Adam popped out of nowhere(created by god) then had children. Now with what we know thanks to science, its just outrageously obvious that's its not how things happened.

 

 

 

And as for examples of what was invented in the bible, take out your precious little book, choose a page by random, put your finger on a line, read it, thats a lie.

 

 

 

Heh, but if you want some precise examples, lets go for the obvious; water to wine, making bread and fish pop out of nowhere, the world created in 7 days, foreseeing the future, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Someone's being ridiculously narrow-minded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christians are rather narrow-minded, they dont believe anything else except what they are told, lack of common sense. Besides, thats a pretty lame remark from someone who has nothing else interesting to say.

[Sumpta]

This thread is getting very amusing. And completely beside the point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that the bible is filled with fantasy, does not make the christian belief a fallacy. The bible uses a very simple method to get messages across: it makes use of metaphorical stories. Apparently, there are idiots on both sides of the argument who simply cannot look beyond the words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our minds work best with the narrative, it's a long continuing tradition of transferring information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, in the past the Church has abused the words of the bible and used them to scare people into following their rules. That does not make the religion bad, nor does it make the bible bad. As a child, I was read many of the stories from both the old and the new testament by my teachers. These stories taught me many of the values I hold dear today. However, I am not a catholic (anymore), I have serious doubts about the existence of a god and I certainly don't envision a Hell with pits of fire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it so hard to see beyond the old Institution and acknowledge the real value of the religion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Science is by man, who is imperfect, therefor it can't be trusted."

 

 

 

I presume this is aimed against me. I cannot believe how you seem so bent on misunderstanding people whom you consider to be "opposition". Science can be trusted, but it's not Absolute Truth. I don't think any scientist would want to live with that kind of pressure. Science is extremely valuable. I think the bible can be very valuable as well. I really don't see why the one must exclude the other. Many religious scientists wouldn't either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sadly, this growing belief disproves evolutionary theory: aren't we supposed to be perfecting ourselves instead of going backwards?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What makes you suggest we're going backwards, sumpta? Besides that, say we have developed some problems; who's to say evolution won't ween them out in the future?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was mainly me being a bit cynical. I cannot believe how people are going back to denying that we humans stem from the ape. Whereas this theory used to be accepted and taught in the schools, now all of a sudden, a lot of people are going back on it and claim the bible to be right. And it's not just stupid, unimportant people who are saying this, but politicians, media, teachers. People who rule the society and hold its future in their hands. I find that really infuriating.

[Satenza]

Why do you beleive the Bible to be so valuable if you don't beleive in it's religion? The majoirty of men outside of the state of nature would feel it natural too not murder or steal from his fellow man. Before the Bible was written, our societys protected us from such 'immorality' so why is it so special?

[Sumpta]

Why do you beleive the Bible to be so valuable if you don't beleive in it's religion? The majoirty of men outside of the state of nature would feel it natural too not murder or steal from his fellow man. Before the Bible was written, our societys protected us from such 'immorality' so why is it so special?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is really getting too silly. Please explain to me where and when I stated that only the bible can be valuable in protecting us from immorality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that there are other instances of transferring values and rules, does not make the bible obsolete or invaluable.

[Satenza]

I did not say you stated that only the Bible can be valuable from protecting us from immorality. Which is exactly my point, why would you hold a book in such high regard that mixes in it's morals with human sacrifice, genocide and much much more which allow this book if in the wrong hands to justify almost any atrocity we can imagine.

[Sumpta]

I did not say you stated that only the Bible can be valuable from protecting us from immorality. Which is exactly my point, why would you hold a book in such high regard that mixes in it's morals with human sacrifice, genocide and much much more which allow this book if in the wrong hands to justify almost any atrocity we can imagine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fault lies with the people who abuse it, not with the book. Any book can be abused. I shudder to think of the possibilities of a Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Dona Tartt's Secret History, well, of any book in the wrong hands, quite frankly. Many repressive authorities have acknowledged the power of the word and banished or burned certain works while spreading others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously, the bible (likewise the thora, the koran or any other religious book...) has a fixed status and authority, but I refuse to make it into the scapegoat for religious fanatism. It's cheap.

[Satenza]

I also hate the fact people use the Bible to justify such repression, ilegitimate authority and atrocitys over others. However they do use the Bible because it states that this almighty God who people beleive is right in every action he takes commits such atrocity. We can see by our standard of morals that it is not acceptable yet these people find this book justifies those things. Which is why i do not hold the Bible in high regard as a moral codebook, and I can find much more valuable books to be insights into how we should live.

[Rebdragon]

I also hate the fact people use the Bible to justify such repression, ilegitimate authority and atrocitys over others. However they do use the Bible because it states that this almighty God who people beleive is right in every action he takes commits such atrocity. We can see by our standard of morals that it is not acceptable yet these people find this book justifies those things. Which is why i do not hold the Bible in high regard as a moral codebook, and I can find much more valuable books to be insights into how we should live.

 

 

 

Satenza.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop living in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for one thing, you're denying the value of the Bible because of how people have used it, not because of what it says. Where the heck did you get that kind of logic?

[Satenza]

People to this day use the Bible to justify murder. They justify it by the mentality that becaue God slayed people that went against his word they can do the same too. Thats not much of an interpretation to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However thats not my point, there are many better books or principles where you can learn morals without the human sacrifice and genocide.

[highlanders]

Peace, love, compassion, respect, etc is all you have to remember, obvious things. Dont need a book with little stories in it to understand that. :3

[Sumpta]

Peace, love, compassion, respect, etc is all you have to remember, obvious things. Dont need a book with little stories in it to understand that. :3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure just repeating those big words will make lots of sense to little children who still have to learn about them :roll:

[Plectrum]

@ the science argument:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is by far atheists favorite argument. Christianity is a fallacy because it cannot correlate with science or common sense. It is the Christian belief that God created everything, that includes science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason why the atheists (or non believers) find this argument so sound proof is because of the Christian belief: God created everything, so Christianity must correlate with science. Then they try to prove that science and Christianity do not correlate. And the way they prove this is by saying that Christianity doesn't correlate with science, which is circular reasoning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only way the science argument cannot be considered a fallacy is by actually proving it without circular reasoning. Go for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism." -Einstein

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Probably one of the very few men that most people can agree was the greatest scientist of all time. If not the greatest, one of the greatest. He is one of the most inspired men of all time. He goes on to admit in an article that he is in fact, Jewish and religious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He also states that Jesus Christ is real, and what he did was real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(if you want some of those article clips about Einstein saying Jesus was real, and he was religious PM me and I'll send them to you. They are to long to post.)