|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
j/c To steal a quote from someone who I don't remember... Quote:
Satan's greatest trick was convincing the world he doesn't exist.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Your still smoking pot 
Nope, never touched the stuff.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,676
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,676 |
Acid 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Had a battery blow up in my face one day, so I'm very cautious around acid. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,676
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,676 |
hmmm maybe your just related to "Aristotle" 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
All that typing yet you still can't answer this simple question. Which came first the chicken or the egg?
Actually I can answer that. The egg came first and here's why:
After a Person is born they lost the ability to mutate or change their DNA, therefore we have a non-chicken. As the non-chicken laid the egg, the egg mutated and became the modern day Chicken. The chicken was more successful than the non-chicken and became the dominant force within that species.
So basically non-chicken laid egg-egg's DNA changed and became a chicken-Chicken was born.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
This entire post is a perfect example of what is wrong with this debate - you seem to feel that because I'm religious, I therefore must try to disprove Lyuokdea's science, as though the two cannot co-exist. That is completely ludicrous. The belief that science and religion are in constant opposition is one of the reasons why there is rarely a civil debate on the topic.
Lyuokdea made a nice post about the compatibility of the two so I'm going to largely defer to that. Suffice it to say though, in my eyes, the literal interpretation of the bible cannot co-exist with modern science. One example I alluded to in my post was that the bible routinely talks about a flat earth, which of course we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt to be wrong, flat earth society members notwithstanding. So my point was going to be that if you look at those passages (and there are many) as metaphorical, fine, but you shouldn't use that same book as a literal reference when convenient to try to disprove science like someone was doing earlier in the thread.
Also, I see this debate come up very frequently. I post and/or lurk on many forums covering many subjects and it has come up on all of them. It's always interesting to compare the tone of the debate based on the expected demographics of those posting. For example.. gun boards vs health&bodybuilding boards.
Quote:
I don't take the entire Old Testament as literal truth. I suppose if you did, then there would be more to what you're saying. Rather, I think many of the stories in there are used more as literary devices to speak to general truths or to make points. Some religious are literalists and many are not as well, so you are making a generalization right off the bat there.
What Phil does is not what Lyuokdea is doing. Lyuokdea is simply bringing up evidence that he believes in to prove his point whereas Phil is just all out bashing the religious and their beliefs... he's completely demeaning. Not to pick on you necessarily, but you did the exact same thing by implying I would even debate a flat earth. This is the arrogance of some who believe in purely science; that they're so educated and learned that they can talk down to everyone who differs in belief.
Quote:
I don't take the entire Old Testament as literal truth. I suppose if you did, then there would be more to what you're saying. Rather, I think many of the stories in there are used more as literary devices to speak to general truths or to make points. Some religious are literalists and many are not as well, so you are making a generalization right off the bat there.
What Phil does is not what Lyuokdea is doing. Lyuokdea is simply bringing up evidence that he believes in to prove his point whereas Phil is just all out bashing the religious and their beliefs... he's completely demeaning. Not to pick on you necessarily, but you did the exact same thing by implying I would even debate a flat earth. This is the arrogance of some who believe in purely science; that they're so educated and learned that they can talk down to everyone who differs in belief.
I never made the generalization that all religious people are literalists-- you did that for me . Like I said before, if you use the stories in the bible as literary devices to make general points, that's fine, but then you have to understand that my post was largely in the context of somebody taking the literal interpretation of the bible to disprove science.
Phil gets bashed on this board no matter what he argues. I think he said something like literal interpretation of the bible is stupid. Literal interpretation of the bible includes things like a flat earth, 6000 years old, 2 of every animal on a boat, parting of the sea, sun stopping in the sky, literally hundreds of inconsistencies, etc. I'll word it this way-- I don't agree with it or believe in it but maybe other people will come to a different conclusion. 
Quote:
I think we can both agree that the universe was created billions of years ago by the Big Bang or some similar initial event. I think we can both agree that earth formed after that and that man has only been on earth for a limited time with a fairly strong likelihood that he evolved from a lesser species. Now, looking purely through a scientific scope, you'll try to trace back everything to the Big Bang and beyond and figure out what caused that, and what caused what happened before that ad infinitum. You'll look forward from the Big Bang and attempt to explain how everything we have now came to be and works in perfect harmony with such intricate and masterful detail.
I'm not sure what your answer is for what guided things to be the way they are, as even science can only guess. Mine is God.
Agree with some points disagree with others, but this seems reasonable and you're actually agreeing with the points I was making in the context of the post you quoted but meh. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
I think that most religious people (myself included) don't interpret the bible literally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,538
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,538 |
Quote:
I think that most religious people (myself included) don't interpret the bible literally.
I think most of my responses were geared towards Knight of Brown, who posted a literal interpretation of the Bible message. As I said up above, I think science is still compatible with the existence of god. You just have to take many of the biblical stories metaphorically.
~Lyuokdea
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
One example I alluded to in my post was that the bible routinely talks about a flat earth, which of course we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt to be wrong, flat earth society members notwithstanding. So my point was going to be that if you look at those passages (and there are many) as metaphorical, fine, but you shouldn't use that same book as a literal reference when convenient
Then if I encounter a text book that refers to Washington DC as the center of the free world or references the four corners of the earth, then I should discount any and all facts to be taken literally from that book?
Quote:
Phil gets bashed on this board no matter what he argues.
I like Phil, but I believe that a lot of his posts are designed to elicit just that reaction.
Quote:
I think he said something like literal interpretation of the bible is stupid. Literal interpretation of the bible includes things like a flat earth, 6000 years old, 2 of every animal on a boat, parting of the sea, sun stopping in the sky, literally hundreds of inconsistencies, etc.
Some of them could be considered inconsistencies, many of them are considered miracles... you either believe in miracles or you don't.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Phil gets bashed on this board no matter what he argues.
That's bullcrap. What he says causes the responses not who says them. If you have a history of making comments that cause that type of response then it may escalate but, it's because of what is said. People have such a hard time grasping that notion.  And it's exactly the response he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
I disagree.
All of his responses are crap, so of course they get bashed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227 |
Quote:
Suffice it to say though, in my eyes, the literal interpretation of the bible cannot co-exist with modern science.
Some parts can, some parts can't but in general I agree.
Quote:
So my point was going to be that if you look at those passages (and there are many) as metaphorical, fine, but you shouldn't use that same book as a literal reference when convenient to try to disprove science like someone was doing earlier in the thread.
Christians who will actually argue that the Bible should be used as a science book over actual science are few in number to say the least.
Quote:
I never made the generalization that all religious people are literalists-- you did that for me . Like I said before, if you use the stories in the bible as literary devices to make general points, that's fine, but then you have to understand that my post was largely in the context of somebody taking the literal interpretation of the bible to disprove science.
You didn't explicitly do that but by saying that the literal interpretation is the reason why science and religion are always at polar opposites, you suggest that the issue of literalism is much bigger than you're insinuating now. The reason, from what I've seen, that religion and science are so often at odds isn't because it's always science fighting literalism, but rather, science showing arrogance and proclaiming the ignorance of any who don't express the science-only viewpoint, which is what Phil did earlier, regardless of how you want to spin it.
Quote:
Phil gets bashed on this board no matter what he argues. I think he said something like literal interpretation of the bible is stupid.
No, Phil said "I don't think religious people are stupid...I think they're taking part in a form of temporary insanity." among others. The reason he gets bashed is because of the idiocy that spews out of his mouth in discussions like this. He has stereotypical views of the religious and bases everything he states around those views. If he was fair and objective, I wouldn't have any problem debating him. The problem is, it's never a point/counterpoint with him, it's a bash/defend.
Quote:
Agree with some points disagree with others, but this seems reasonable and you're actually agreeing with the points I was making in the context of the post you quoted but meh. Cheers.
I definitely agree with some of the points you're making, but I think that where you're missing the point is that whereas many on here can have a civil discussion, the general view of religion by several posters here is downright degrading and doesn't allow for that. You might not see it as your view isn't under attack, but the arrogance and complete lack of understanding that's been presented by some in this thread (not saying it's you), has been downright appalling. Then again, I'm used to it from those people so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. 
We're... we're good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
Then if I encounter a text book that refers to Washington DC as the center of the free world or references the four corners of the earth, then I should discount any and all facts to be taken literally from that book?
What does Washington DC have to do with this?
I think you're trying to relate politics and science/religion with some bad analogy based on the word "center". Can you clear up how they relate to each other? I'm genuinely confused.
Quote:
I like Phil, but I believe that a lot of his posts are designed to elicit just that reaction.
Phil isn't important here. It clearly had nothing to do with my post and it was one sentence out of a huge post...
Quote:
Some of them could be considered inconsistencies, many of them are considered miracles... you either believe in miracles or you don't.
I'd be more inclined to believe them if there was legitimate evidence to support them. That's just a general statement. That they are written about in a collection of books written by men, recopied by men, chosen by men, and translated by men is not good enough for me.
The inconsistencies I mention were separate from the other things. I'm talking about these types of things, quoting from biblegateway.com:
Quote:
Genesis 1:3-5 (King James Version)
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Quote:
Genesis 1:14-19 (King James Version)
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
There are a lot of errors, contradictions, and discrepancies like this in the bible. Some in the same book, some over different books. If the bible really were the work of a perfect god, shouldn't one expect it to be perfect as well? Meaning consistent, truthful, accurate, and without any contradiction? I don't see this as the case.
Instead you have books that span the time period of over 1000 years including word passed from generation to generation, changed, rewritten and this work was done throughout great time periods and in different locations. So, of course there is going to be a great deal of inconsistency. But, that also immediately and inherently calls into the question the accuracy of the content found in the various books.
Here's another passage from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+10:12-13
Quote:
12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [a] its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Now, ignoring the implication that the sun stopped (that is, that the sun revolved around a stationary earth and god stopped the sun for a full day), let's put this into context with what we know about the earth's rotation around the sun.
The earth spins on its axis at a speed of about 1000 miles per hour. So if the earth were to suddenly stop spinning, as would be necessary for the sun to pause in the sky for a full day, everything else would... still be moving at a speed of 1000 miles per hour. Then again, an omnipotent and all powerful god could probably figure out a way to mitigate all this, but it's just a deeper way to look at some of the scientific repercussions of the miracles found in the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Spectre, 1) I'm glad we could at least find some common ground. 2) Like I said, I don't really care about Phil. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I disagree with him. It's really not important to the discussion though, and had I known everyone would jump at that one little statement then I wouldn't have included it. I don't think he's the terrible guy that you guys think he is, though. Quote:
I definitely agree with some of the points you're making, but I think that where you're missing the point is that whereas many on here can have a civil discussion, the general view of religion by several posters here is downright degrading and doesn't allow for that. You might not see it as your view isn't under attack, but the arrogance and complete lack of understanding that's been presented by some in this thread (not saying it's you), has been downright appalling. Then again, I'm used to it from those people so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
I would agree with you that christian/religious types take it pretty hard in online discussions. For starters, there is the anonymity of the internet-- whereas science/athiest/agnostic types have to be politically correct and thus hold back some views when debating in person, that doesn't really apply on the internet. The reverse is also true, though. I've just found it is far more politically correct and accepted to be religious than it is to not be.
Also, everybody has access to google when you debate online. And since faith based arguments are, well, faith based, and science based arguments are based on facts and information, this obviously benefits the latter.
I think you would be downright frightened if some of the hardcore religious types posted their true beliefs in here. I doubt anybody in this thread feels this way, but I've read and listened to so many religious people who want to kill athiests, or kick them out of the country, or just downright do terrible things to them. It's a very real problem and I think it's at least partly why the debate can become so hostile. That, and you generally have two sides that feel VERY strongly in what they believe in, often with contradictory views.
cliff notes: blah blah blah, lot of rambling
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Nobody said Phil was a terrible guy, nobody. It just irks me when people come on and act as though it's only because it's a particular person that a post gets a certain reaction. The reason it does for everyone on this board is for what the person says. Period. Quote:
I think you would be downright frightened if some of the hardcore religious types posted their true beliefs in here. I doubt anybody in this thread feels this way, but I've read and listened to so many religious people who want to kill athiests, or kick them out of the country, or just downright do terrible things to them. It's a very real problem and I think it's at least partly why the debate can become so hostile. That, and you generally have two sides that feel VERY strongly in what they believe in, often with contradictory views.
You are going to find extremes in every group of people. There are religious types who want me killed or kicked out of the country. It certainly doesn't warp my view of all religious people. In my own experience I have found religious people to be far more tolerant of atheists, etc., than the reverse. I have found the atheists I have met to be extremely intolerant and elitest. Doesn't mean they are all that way, but I see far more of it from them than I do the religious types.
That said, there are dumbasses everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
One thing that must be remembered when dealing with the Bible. It is a 2000 year old book that was written by man. Man is fallible even if the word of God is not.
Not only that, but it has be translated so many times that it is inevitable that some things are lost in the translation. Going one step further, there are different definitions for words and phrases today than was accurate in the time it was recorded. So there is again going to be some difference.
The Bible is an incredible collection of books written by a lot of people. The majority of which were "accepted" by the pope and the church hierarchy at the time. There is/was/are some books which were not included because they didn't take the view the church wished to profess. At best it is incomplete.
It is also a collection of tales/stories from ONE nationality/faith based in a time where there were many. So to look at the Bible as the ONLY true source is disingenuous and misleading from a historical perspective.
It is not and never was meant to be a scientific text. Just because there are some inconsistencies within it's pages does not invalidate everything that is there. Put it within the context of the time, and when you read from it, take it for exactly what it is. A point of reference from a individual who is chronicling the events as they transpire as they see it. There are many many many good things in the Bible. It, as they say, was done with the best intentions. But it is not a literal text meant to be picked apart as it has inevitably been.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
Nobody said Phil was a terrible guy, nobody. It just irks me when people come on and act as though it's only because it's a particular person that a post gets a certain reaction. The reason it does for everyone on this board is for what the person says. Period.
Quote:
I think you would be downright frightened if some of the hardcore religious types posted their true beliefs in here. I doubt anybody in this thread feels this way, but I've read and listened to so many religious people who want to kill athiests, or kick them out of the country, or just downright do terrible things to them. It's a very real problem and I think it's at least partly why the debate can become so hostile. That, and you generally have two sides that feel VERY strongly in what they believe in, often with contradictory views.
You are going to find extremes in every group of people. There are religious types who want me killed or kicked out of the country. It certainly doesn't warp my view of all religious people. In my own experience I have found religious people to be far more tolerant of atheists, etc., than the reverse. I have found the atheists I have met to be extremely intolerant and elitest. Doesn't mean they are all that way, but I see far more of it from them than I do the religious types.
That said, there are dumbasses everywhere.
Touche. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
What does Washington DC have to do with this?
I think you're trying to relate politics and science/religion with some bad analogy based on the word "center". Can you clear up how they relate to each other? I'm genuinely confused.
No, I'm stating that it is statements about Jerusalem being the center of the world and crumbling pillars and the four corners of the earth that people use to say the Bible preaches a flat earth... when many of those sayings are used to this very day, by scientists... Saying DC is the center of the free world is not a geographical depiction of anything, it's a methaphor.. just as it was then. The Bible has facts, the Bible has metaphors... debates rage within the Christian faiths over which are facts and which are metaphors... it's a beautiful scheme to keep people from focusing ON THE POINT.
Quote:
I'd be more inclined to believe them if there was legitimate evidence to support them. That's just a general statement. That they are written about in a collection of books written by men, recopied by men, chosen by men, and translated by men is not good enough for me.
You want legitimate evidence to support a miracle? 
I have no idea what the inconsistencies are with your day and evening passages...
Quote:
There are a lot of errors, contradictions, and discrepancies like this in the bible. Some in the same book, some over different books. If the bible really were the work of a perfect god, shouldn't one expect it to be perfect as well? Meaning consistent, truthful, accurate, and without any contradiction? I don't see this as the case.
One would expect that it was when it was written... I'm a bit torn on this myself, knowing that it was written by different people with different perspectives... and that the version I read has been translated many times... yes, I struggle with that...
Quote:
Now, ignoring the implication that the sun stopped (that is, that the sun revolved around a stationary earth and god stopped the sun for a full day),
I understand that there is an extreme minority of people who use the Bible as science, most do not. What you miss is that "Joshua said"... Joshua asked that the sun be stopped because Joshua thought the sun revolved around the earth.. so God had two choices, either do as Joshua had asked or stand and argue about which one was actually moving... and since God is not my wife, He didn't feel compelled to have an argument over something which was irrelevant to the task.
Quote:
The earth spins on its axis at a speed of about 1000 miles per hour. So if the earth were to suddenly stop spinning, as would be necessary for the sun to pause in the sky for a full day, everything else would... still be moving at a speed of 1000 miles per hour. Then again, an omnipotent and all powerful god could probably figure out a way to mitigate all this, but it's just a deeper way to look at some of the scientific repercussions of the miracles found in the bible.
This goes back to what I said before... human beings, with our finite cognitive skills, always try to understand miracles in terms of what they can explain... the very NATURE of a miracle is that you can't explain it. I cannot sit here and explain to you HOW a miracle happened or HOW God overcame what would seem to be the natural reaction to the miracle, so I'm not going to try. You either believe in miracles or you don't....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
I'm not immediately sure how you would define a miracle. For example, say a doctor says there is a 1% chance that a cancer patient will make a miraculous recovery, and ultimately does. Many people would consider that a miracle. If we are talking strictly about miracles performed in the bible that would impossible without an all-powerful god breaking the laws of nature and covering his tracks to make them impossible to detect in the future, that is a different subject.
So to ask you directly, do you believe that god stopped the earth for a full day because he was asked (and I don't see anything wrong with that belief)? And if so did he make it impossible for future scientists to detect?
Since I know you won't answer that question, is there any other reason to believe it other than it is written in the bible?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
It has a lot to do with these things...but not these things specifically. Sex isn't destroying our society, nor is video games, drugs, dependence on gov't, or rock and roll...what's flawing us is the excess and the manner in which we use them.
I could start a whole thread on what is ailing us...but one other point is the idea that buying things or having things make us better and happier people. Hell, we could pin this whole economic crisis onto things of that nature, Veblen-esque stuff. 'Well, they have a new car/pool/house/jet ski/woman, so I need one that's equal or better'.
So what you are saying is that a more Biblical approach to these things would make us all happier and make this country and the world a better place?
Absolutely I am. However, religion isn't working to promote the messages of the Bible. Not in the slightest.
And if they were...Americans would likely denounce it. It's effectively a very anti-capitalist document that promotes selflessness over individuality and compassion over condemnation.
I mean, it's spelled out very clearly that rich people are living in sin and will not enter Heaven due to their greed. It's a very, very, very important tenet of the New Testament.
I think the messages contained in the New Testament are very, very important ones that we should all aspire to emulate. However, religion has perverted and warped those messages to the point where they don't even come close to promoting the fictional work that they claim is their guide. As an outsider, I find it baffling.
If Jesus were the son of God, and he could visit the Vatican and see the ornate costumes and the gold crosses and the hatred, he would be absolutely appalled at what was carried out in his name. It's akin to a follower of Dr. King carrying out segregation in his name.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
nvm, i'd rather just be done with this
Last edited by hasugopher; 05/12/09 07:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
You can find plenty of threads and posts on this board labeling Islam as violent, dangerous, crazy, etc. Nobody gets upset when that happens. I state the opinion that *all* religion is void of logic and reason, and suddenly I'm just being a hateful basher. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925 |
Quote:
You can find plenty of threads and posts on this board labeling Islam as violent, dangerous, crazy, etc. Nobody gets upset when that happens.
I disagree. You can find many posts concerning extremists - of any religion - , but please don't change the facts on what is posted. We all read. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. If you want to talk extremist muslims, budhists, christians, or atheists.....yeah - extremism is the common denominator there.
Quote:
I state the opinion that *all* religion is void of logic and reason, and suddenly I'm just being a hateful basher.
No, what you stated was ANY one that believes in religion is stupid, irrational, and illogical.
Again, please don't rephrase what you posted. Because I believe in God......because I believe....you have stated that I am stupid, irrational, and illogical, and so is everyone else that believes, according to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
I didn't perceive it like that at all and I believe in god.
I think that the bible is a great book that can teach us a lot of really good, good stuff----
but I think that it should be read as an epic story that has left a significant mark across human history, one that has brought us to where we are today and continues to influence more and more people every day. One that uses stories to teach us how to be decent human beings.
I think that by focusing on the authenticity of the stories you are really focusing on the wrong part. Its not about if the stuff really happened or not----it about what that story teaches us. And how we apply that to our daily lives.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
No, what you stated was ANY one that believes in religion is stupid, irrational, and illogical.
No, that's what you inferred from my post.
I actually stated specifically that a belief in something stupid doesn't necessarily make someone stupid. More than once, actually.
A lot of very smart and thoughtful individuals believe in the irrational and illogical beliefs fostered by religion...I believe I described it as a form of 'temporary insanity', which I stand behind.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,667
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,667 |
Good post derden. I agree with most of what you said, even though I don't even believe in God. the Bible offers good teachings... not all, but a lot of it.
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925 |
Quote:
I think that by focusing on the authenticity of the stories you are really focusing on the wrong part. Its not about if the stuff really happened or not----it about what that story teaches us. And how we apply that to our daily lives.
I agree.
And if you look back, you'll see from my posts.
My problem is with someone calling me stupid, irrational, and illogical for believing in God, and for believing in religion. No more, no less. Phil is using a talking snake to discredit christianity in total. I take issue with that.
There has been some good discussion in this thread - outside of phils total slams on religion and religious people.
What I find interesting is science says one thing, which can't be proven, and religion says another, which can't be proven. Each takes faith, and I might add, each is not mutually exclusive.
My whole problem is with phil inanely attempting to justify his lack of religion/belief in a higher power/ etc, by lamelly discrediting religon as "stupid, illogical, and irrational". Perhaps in his world that's how it is. I thank God I don't live in his world, and his attempt to shove his world on me, and other religious people.........well, it's going to cause me to shove back so to speak. I have held my thoughts very well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
However, religion isn't working to promote the messages of the Bible. Not in the slightest.
Phil, I don't mean to be derogatory but when is the last time you spent any significant amount of time in church to find out exactly what they are promoting? How many different churches? Or do you get that opinion from an old church experience, televangelists, the news and your opinions of the republican party?
Quote:
It's effectively a very anti-capitalist document that promotes selflessness over individuality and compassion over condemnation.
That's pretty much what my church preaches... and I go to a fairly mainstream church...
Quote:
I mean, it's spelled out very clearly that rich people are living in sin and will not enter Heaven due to their greed. It's a very, very, very important tenet of the New Testament.
Being rich is not a sin Phil, it's not and it never has been... valuing money and possessions more than God is a sin... loving anything more than God is a sin, whether it's football or drugs or money or even your own family...
Quote:
If Jesus were the son of God, and he could visit the Vatican and see the ornate costumes and the gold crosses and the hatred, he would be absolutely appalled at what was carried out in his name.
Yes, I think He would be appalled at a lot of things, mostly the hatred, not just in the Vatican but everywhere...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Hatred in the Vatican?? Why is it that when people "disapprove" of a lifestyle or practice , that automatically equals "hatred"? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think that by focusing on the authenticity of the stories you are really focusing on the wrong part. Its not about if the stuff really happened or not----it about what that story teaches us. And how we apply that to our daily lives.
I agree.
And if you look back, you'll see from my posts.
My problem is with someone calling me stupid, irrational, and illogical for believing in God, and for believing in religion. No more, no less. Phil is using a talking snake to discredit christianity in total. I take issue with that.
There has been some good discussion in this thread - outside of phils total slams on religion and religious people.
What I find interesting is science says one thing, which can't be proven, and religion says another, which can't be proven. Each takes faith, and I might add, each is not mutually exclusive.
My whole problem is with phil inanely attempting to justify his lack of religion/belief in a higher power/ etc, by lamelly discrediting religon as "stupid, illogical, and irrational". Perhaps in his world that's how it is. I thank God I don't live in his world, and his attempt to shove his world on me, and other religious people.........well, it's going to cause me to shove back so to speak. I have held my thoughts very well.
Forget the talking snake, can you address my point about the sun stopping in the sky that I talked about the other day?
Look, I really don't care that you're religious. I hate how you're going about this... you're not even responding to any of my posts or Ly's posts, you're just taking the emotional route and saying that you are getting unfairly bashed.
Here's the problem as I see it. I fully support your right to believe in whatever the hell you want to believe in. I have absolutely no problem with it, and ordinarily I think we'd be able to leave it at that. The problem I have is that inevitably the same views are shared by US senators and used to pass really illogical laws like Bill Frist's UIGEA or by vice presidential candidates who want to teach creationism in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Which, I really wouldn't have a problem with, but if you're going to cross the line between separation of church and state, you have to bring the proof and evidence!
I see none. But, as always, I will keep an open mind so I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,676
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,676 |
Quote:
The earth spins on its axis at a speed of about 1000 miles per hour. So if the earth were to suddenly stop spinning, as would be necessary for the sun to pause in the sky for a full day, everything else would... still be moving at a speed of 1000 miles per hour. Then again, an omnipotent and all powerful god could probably figure out a way to mitigate all this, but it's just a deeper way to look at some of the scientific repercussions of the miracles found in the bible.
If god can stop the earth, moon, stars, and sun from moving for 24 hours, I'm sure he would have no problem stopping "scientific repercussions"
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,925 |
Quote:
Look, I really don't care that you're religious. I hate how you're going about this...
You hate how I'M going about this? What have I said that you disagree with, or that you hate?
If you're calling me "stupid, irrational, and illogical" for believing in God, and for being a Christian, I missed it. If you aren't calling me those things - what's the problem? Please re-read all my posts, hopefully a scientific mind like you will be able to see what I'm saying.
Quote:
you're not even responding to any of my posts or Ly's posts, you're just taking the emotional route and saying that you are getting unfairly bashed.
No. And no. I am not replying to you guys because I have no reason to.
And no, I am not taking an emotional route and saying I am being unfairly bashed. Not at all. My issue is with someone calling me stupid, irrational, and illogical. It really is that simple.
I have no desire to debate science. Although, if science were proven, in regards to what we are talking about - there would be no discussion, would there? That still wouldn't change my religion, my belief in God, or my feelings.
Quote:
Here's the problem as I see it. I fully support your right to believe in whatever the hell you want to believe in. I have absolutely no problem with it, and ordinarily I think we'd be able to leave it at that. The problem I have is that inevitably the same views are shared by US senators and used to pass really illogical laws like Bill Frist's UIGEA or by vice presidential candidates who want to teach creationism in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
So, we should teach evolution only, in your eyes? Where is the proof of evolution? It takes just as big of a leap of faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation.
Now, I will grant you that some people are wired to believe in only that which they can rationally explain, and that's fine. But evolution has never been proven beyond very simple things. Am I to believe that earth was just a ball of mass, and then there was a big bang, and all of a sudden people, plants, and animals came about? Please. That takes even MORE of a leap of faith.
Science is good. But science cannot and will not ever be able to explain everything. That is a truth you can take to the grave.
Quote:
Which, I really wouldn't have a problem with, but if you're going to cross the line between separation of church and state, you have to bring the proof and evidence!
I'm not crossing any line. If you're complaining about senators and gov't. in general, good for you. You don't like gov't. making rules/laws based on their/its belief's? Good for you. Here's a news flash - every gov't. does that, as does every senator and representative - and take "religion" out of it - every senator and representative make decisions based on their opinions and views. Again, take that statement I just made, think about it with religion out of the picture - replace it with taxes, for example, or replace it with basically anything. Then think long and hard about what I stated.Quote:
I see none. But, as always, I will keep an open mind so I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
You see no.......what? I'm glad you will keep an open mind. When science can prove beyond doubt, without question, that there is no God........if science can prove beyond doubt, without question that evolution is what turned this ball into a living breathing life sustaining environment, if science can prove beyond doubt that man was once ape, etc.....I'll believe it. As of now, it cannot be proven, just as I cannot prove God to you. You talk of many things that are generally accepted, but not proven. I speak of faith in a higher being. The only proof I have is my beliefs, which prove nothing to people that don't care or don't want to believe. That is fine with me.
Just don't call me stupid, irrational, and illogical. You want to have a scientific debate with me? I'm not a scientist. I can't do it. And apparently scientists can't prove much either, i.e. global warming......they can get a consensus, but then they change their minds later on so many issues.
Oh, as for your sun thing....who the hell knows? I highly doubt God stopped the sun for anything, especially someone asking him to. But really, what the hell does the sun stopping or not stopping have to do with anything? Oh, I know, you're looking to find a flaw, or error, from the Bible, in order to give your stance more credence. Got it.
See, that is all you're going for - to find flaws or mistakes in the Bible, thinking that will prove your science. It doesn't. I can find flaws and mistakes in science books - doesn't prove God, does it?
Either way, you need faith - religion or science. People that feel the need to quantify absolutely everything, and if it's not quantifiable they won't believe it.....well, good for them. It's their life.
Again, I don't want to have a scientific debate (I mentioned that I was enjoying this thread, didn't I?). I don't want to have a religion discussion. But if you call me stupid, irrational, and illogical, I will step in and say "don't".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
If god can stop the earth, moon, stars, and sun from moving for 24 hours, I'm sure he would have no problem stopping "scientific repercussions"
I still have a problem with the gravity concept.
They say we have gravity because of the earth spinning motion. But if I take a ball and spray it with water then spin it, all the water goes flying off.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
I don't think believing in God or Christianity is stupid. The mind, at an early age, is like a clean slate. You can teach a young kid anything and most will believe it for life. When you teach something so dramatic, like an all-powerful god that watches your every move that you must believe in or your soul will be thrown into a firey hell for all eternity, it tends to stick. So I don't think it's stupid to believe, but rather the beliefs themselves are silly. Especially a literal view of the bible. Now that you've plainly stated that you don't want to debate, that is fine. Evolution is not a leap of faith. It is a MASSIVE scientific field and the theory is so robust and only a theory in the strictest, scientific sense of the word. That the earth is a sphere and revolves around the sun is only a scientific theory, albeit one with a massive volume of evidence to support it. The only consistent way to refute evolution would be that god created the world as is (in 6 days) and that he purposely tricked future scientists by creating the universe in such a way that all signs (ly covered this earlier) point to a lie. I would be OK with teaching creationism were there anything substantial to back it up. There isn't. 1) it is written of in a book 2) the competing theory is one that you can't be bothered to research That is not good enough for me. Not even close. One of the things science won't ever be able to prove is the lack of existence of a god that, as defined by religious people, cannot ever be detected. Since when is the burden of proof on somebody to prove something DOES NOT exist. I literally cannot think of any other field where this is the case. If you are 100% sure of something exist, show it! Bring the proof! In what other field is the burden of proof on the non-believer?? Another point-- which god specifically are we referring to? Humanity has, according to one estimate I've read, invented about 20,000 gods throughout human history. Twenty. Thousand. Gods. It would likewise be impossible for you to disprove those gods and be sure you are worshiping the correct one. Yet you would think of anybody as a fool for those worshipping any god but your own. (and MAYBE one or two more exceptions, e.g. allah) Re: Government, of course governments make laws based on their own beliefs. I just prefer they be beliefs with legitimate backing and facts to support their beliefs, thats all. I'm not a scientist either. And it's hard to be an expert on everything. For example, if you wanted to talk about how to use science to build a better body (e.g. health/fitness/bodybuilding) I could hang with the best of 'em. I'm not talking chemical enhancement either. I'm talking about ways to structure training, diet, etc. to best work to your advantage. It's all a common theme-- science. I could *not*, however, explain all the scientific facts and theories relating to the big bang. I know the basics and that's about it, and I'm ok with deferring to people much smarter than I on the subject and that have devoted their lives to researching it. Here's another way to look at it. I wouldn't tell Bill Belichick how to coach football. I wouldn't tell Phil Jackson how to coach basketball. I wouldn't tell Phil Ivey how to play poker, and I wouldn't tell a farmer how to plant crops. So why would I tell the collective work of thousands of physicists how the universe works? It doesn't make any sense. Finding mistakes and flaws in the bible, including some glaring ones, just shows that it's illogical to use one flawed book to disprove humanity's collective work in the sciences. Even if you can find flaws in the sciences (please, feel free to disprove evolution, I'm waiting). Also you mentioned something about global warming which I won't even debate. It's not pertinent to the discussion and it's not my area of expertise and I don't have a strong opinion on it either way. There's certainly much more room to debate it than the truly robust theories, e.g. evolution. Here is a quick overview, with 226 references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
If god can stop the earth, moon, stars, and sun from moving for 24 hours, I'm sure he would have no problem stopping "scientific repercussions"
I still have a problem with the gravity concept.
They say we have gravity because of the earth spinning motion. But if I take a ball and spray it with water then spin it, all the water goes flying off.
Because the ball might weigh an ounce or a pound whereas the earth weighs trillions of tons.
It has to do with mass not the rotation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
An emoticon (pronounced e-moh-ti-kon) is a textual portrayal of a writer's mood or facial expression
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
haha, I'm doing one of these right now :facepalm: my bad
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
DC, running through our responses, I think in a way we're on the same page (as much as we can be)...
I get that religion can do good for people, I understand that the fundamental messages in the New Testament are how we should live, and I'm aware that not everyone or not even most people in any given congregation believe in talking snakes and stoning gays.
But when I look at the effects of Christianity around me, I see a lot of spite and ignorance. On the government-level, the two biggest faith initiatives I see revolve around gay marriage and abortion. Homosexuality is not addressed in the New Testament, and only referenced vaguely, and abortion certainly isn't a hotbed issue, either. I imagine if I polled any given congregation in March of 2003, support for carpet bombing Iraq would've been fairly high. And don't think I'm merely assuming what Christ's stand on that would be.
There's a million angles you could come at me from to refute me, and the most correct would be that no one is perfect, and the tenets of Christianity preach forgiveness for error. But I guess in the end, my biggest problem is that by and large, Christians are woefully extreme hypocrites, and to add fuel to the fire, they're righteous about it.
This thread is a great example of the righteousness -- if someone were to tell any one of us 'I think sports is stupid. Grown men yelling and hugging over other men beating the crap out of each other'. I don't think there would be any big, huffy, offended anger. We'd just say 'I love it' and move on. I say I think religion is stupid and I'm hateful, harsh, bigoted, insecure, etc., etc.
The 'Christian morality' has become the conventional morality...which would be fine by me, if it were actually the spirit of the Christian morality outlined in the New Testament. It's something much more perverse however. Like I say with anything...the individual Christians I meet, I have no problem with. It's once the group mentality takes over that I find it illogical, detrimental and at times dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
I have been reading this thread for awhile now, and at no point does anyone call you stupid.
And from your post, It seems like you really don't know much about the scientific stuff. It sounds as though you are dismissing these theories without a real understanding of what they are about---and that is kind of ignorant. Just saying "I don't buy it," without even considering the evidence is just ridiculous.
Just the way you worded your post about evolution and the big bang---it seems like you don't really have that great of an understanding of either--and you act really defensively when they are presented.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Ohio Christian school tells
student to skip prom
|
|
