Log in

View Full Version : Whoever calls Googlism blasphemy:


DrDaxxy
November 27th, 2007, 09:26 PM
You're doing blasphemy to us! You may not forbid us to worship another god than you. And we're not doing that to you, either:icon_exclaim:

Vexx
November 27th, 2007, 10:58 PM
That's something I've always got confused about....according to one religion, are people of other (but also similar) religions automatically going to hell?

MvT Cracker
November 28th, 2007, 03:55 AM
That's something I've always got confused about....according to one religion, are people of other (but also similar) religions automatically going to hell?

"One phrase that come up quite a bit in abortion discussions is "sanctity of life." What about that? Do you think there's a thing as sanctity of life? Personally,, I think it's a bunch of shit. Who says life is sacred? .....god? Great, but if you read your history you know that god is one of the leading causes of death and has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Jews, all taking turns killing one another, because god told them it was a good idea. The sword of god, the blood of the lamb, Vengeance is mine, onward Christian soldiers. Millions of dead people. All because they gave the wrong answer to the god Question: Do you believe in god?

No.
BAM! Dead.
How about you? Do you believe in god?
Yes."
Do you believe in MY god?
No.
BAM! Dead!
My god has a bigger Dick than your god.

George Carlin
On Religion

Wallsy
November 28th, 2007, 06:56 AM
That's something I've always got confused about....according to one religion, are people of other (but also similar) religions automatically going to hell?

Depends on the religion. According to Buddhism, no one is going to Hell. According to Catholicism, everyone except Catholics who've accepted Jesus as their saviour and confessed their sins to Him is going to Hell. According to some forms of generic Christianity, anyone who's nice is going to Heaven and only bad people go to Hell.


Wallsy.

Loki
November 28th, 2007, 07:39 PM
According to some forms of generic Christianity, anyone who's nice is going to Heaven and only bad people go to Hell.

Rubbish!
A definition of a Christian being one who follows the teachings of JC?

I know of no Christian sect that teaches the above. Enlighten me!

Wallsy
November 29th, 2007, 06:16 AM
Rubbish!
A definition of a Christian being one who follows the teachings of JC?

I know of no Christian sect that teaches the above. Enlighten me!

Find a local church. Ask the priest if your Buddhist friend is going to heaven. Bet they tell you he is.

It's not in line with what's written in the Bible, but it's believed and taught by a lot of Christians.


Wallsy.

Loki
November 30th, 2007, 06:11 PM
Find a local church. Ask the priest if your Buddhist friend is going to heaven. Bet they tell you he is.

It's not in line with what's written in the Bible, but it's believed and taught by a lot of Christians.

I'll take you up on that bet!

When I was xtian (quite a few years ago) you were xtian only if you had accepted JC as your own personal saviour.
Those who didn't surrender to Christ were damned. Simple as that.

Now - unless you know something I don't, this hasn't changed.

Regarding the bet - my local churches consist of Baptist, AoG, Evangelical, Xtian fellowships, the odd Catlick and Henry (I wanna divorce) VIII Anglican.

What's the bet now? :D

Don't forget that many people claim to be xtian as a matter of course. They might go to church on baby jeebus night but for the rest of the year they're indistinguishable from you or me.

Perhaps this is a semantic argument again.
To me, words are important. I do differentiate between the merely religious and the truly faithful.
Only the latter are Christians.

Wallsy
December 2nd, 2007, 07:24 AM
Regarding the bet - my local churches consist of Baptist, AoG, Evangelical, Xtian fellowships, the odd Catlick and Henry (I wanna divorce) VIII Anglican.
What's the bet now? :D

Try the Catholics or the Anglicans. They're both reasonably likely to asy that Buddhists go to heaven.


Don't forget that many people claim to be xtian as a matter of course. They might go to church on baby jeebus night but for the rest of the year they're indistinguishable from you or me.

I still count them as Christians, and I'm fairly sure that most of them believe that Buddhists can go to heaven. And if you don't call those people Christians, what do you call them?


Wallsy.

Loki
December 2nd, 2007, 05:18 PM
Wallsy.
Try the Catholics or the Anglicans. They're both reasonably likely to asy that Buddhists go to heaven.

Ahah - the statistical approach to logic. The other churches being probable outliers then :D

And if you don't call those people Christians, what do you call them?

Christian is a title, a definition no less. Do you honestly think that everyone who attends Church *religiously* is a Christian?

What do I call them? I call them religious. In the same way that I religiously shave every morning. Habit!

I'm pretty sure Oz is the same. We use the same language after all.

Wallsy
December 3rd, 2007, 07:41 AM
Ahah - the statistical approach to logic. The other churches being probable outliers then :D

I said a lot of Christians believe and teach it. I didn't say a majority do or anything like that.


What do I call them? I call them religious. In the same way that I religiously shave every morning. Habit!

But if they're religious, that means they're followers of a religion. If you won't call it Christianity (even thugh they identify themselves as followers of Christ), what do you cal them? They're a large group of people of similar beliefs, and share about as much in common with the various groups you do classify as Christians as those groups do with each other, so I really don't understand how you culd classify them as anything else.


Wallsy.

tatty000
December 4th, 2007, 08:25 AM
I'll take you up on that bet!

When I was xtian (quite a few years ago) you were xtian only if you had accepted JC as your own personal saviour.
Those who didn't surrender to Christ were damned. Simple as that.
That accepting Jesus stuff isn't quite right though. True salvation in christianity comes through repenting and confessing. Why the change from christianity to what ever you are now?
Try the Catholics or the Anglicans. They're both reasonably likely to asy that Buddhists go to heaven.

I still count them as Christians, and I'm fairly sure that most of them believe that Buddhists can go to heaven. And if you don't call those people Christians, what do you call them?I'll say that Buddists wont go to heaven right here right now. Simple, basic christianity should be done, but people really cant stick to the good book right.

I don't call those types of people christians. I mean, you don't have to go to church to be a christian, but it is a very very good habit to be into.

Loki
December 4th, 2007, 01:27 PM
"That accepting Jesus stuff isn't quite right though. True salvation in christianity comes through repenting and confessing.Yeah - you're absolutely right. No good just submitting to Christ and then carrying on with the ways of the world.

Why the change from christianity to what ever you are now?"That's a fair question. According to some I still am a Christian - just a little lost sheep :D Baaaaa. I'm still a member of the Methodist Church but I'm slightly worried that if I step into a church I'll catch on fire :)

OK - seriously. It's a long story Tatty and I'll tell you all of it sometime, if you're interested?

In brief - I could no longer relate the teaching of the bible to the actions of my (at that time) fellow christians.


All I saw was hatred, fear and power trips.
I was told that I was possessed by demons and needed deliverance. I was told not to question, that I was thinking too much. I should accept what the preacher told me because he was wise (he was a tool to be honest).
(that wasn't at the Methodist church btw - I used to attend AoG services in the evening)

I never believed Genesis to be literal. I couldn't understand why god, who made us all, could condemn 90% (guess-work) of his creation to eternal suffering.


I suffer from a condition called Cluster headaches. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_headache) God did squat! Some brave soul told me that was my "thorn in the side", that I should celebrate it. God knew me and wouldn't let the devil do this unless He was sure it would make me stronger. Like John.

As you can imagine, this went down like a ton of bricks. If I'd been in the middle of an attack when it was said then I'd have needed dragging off them!

Where was the compassion, the love, the care and concern. Where was God? Surely He knew I was on the brink and close to going over.

There's a lot more but this is turning into a rant. Sorry.


What am I now? Just me - David. Looking for meaning, still searching for the truth. A Humanist. Someone more concerned with the plight of individuals than the pipe-dream of immortality. An active member of Amnesty and, I hope, a decent human being (when I'm not being a tit :D)

Hmmm - that was getting heavy :D

Losing My Religion - REM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7vs21ZKrKM)

AaronD
December 4th, 2007, 04:51 PM
That accepting Jesus stuff isn't quite right though. True salvation in christianity comes through repenting and confessing. Why the change from christianity to what ever you are now?
Christianity stated succinctly. Everything you do is wrong, now get on your knees and feel guilty for it or you're going to burn forever! That has to be the most loving god I've ever heard of, Tatty. How kind of him to offer me the chance not to suffer in eternal torment as long as I feel guilty for even my thoughts and beg wholeheartedly for forgiveness! I can tell you this: the Abrahamic god must be one hell of a sadist, if he requires all of his subjects to beg and plead for forgiveness... of their mere thoughts. Meanwhile, in the bible, he's having people stoned to death for lighting a fire on the wrong day. How utterly compassionate!

I'll say that Buddists wont go to heaven right here right now. Simple, basic christianity should be done, but people really cant stick to the good book right.

I don't call those types of people christians. I mean, you don't have to go to church to be a christian, but it is a very very good habit to be into.

And what makes you so arrogantly sure that your 'good' book's the right one? Christianity is certainly not the first religion, nor the last. Its holy text is full of inconsistencies and general scientific fallacies that have later been disproven. It is sadistic, changes writing style often, and has thousands of people being killed for little to no reason by the main 'hero.' Doesn't sound like that good of a book to me, never mind the ultimate truth.

tatty000
December 6th, 2007, 10:09 AM
Christianity stated succinctly. Everything you do is wrong, now get on your knees and feel guilty for it or you're going to burn forever! That has to be the most loving god I've ever heard of, Tatty. How kind of him to offer me the chance not to suffer in eternal torment as long as I feel guilty for even my thoughts and beg wholeheartedly for forgiveness! I can tell you this: the Abrahamic god must be one hell of a sadist, if he requires all of his subjects to beg and plead for forgiveness... of their mere thoughts. Meanwhile, in the bible, he's having people stoned to death for lighting a fire on the wrong day. How utterly compassionate!Not everything your doing is wrong. But the sinful things we do tend to make us feel guilty anyway. It's not just about feeling the worst of the worst and a complete downer when you tell a white lie, it's about realizing the fact that sin is rebellion from God and it leads to harm, not good.


And what makes you so arrogantly sure that your 'good' book's the right one? Christianity is certainly not the first religion, nor the last.Chances are my religion is wrong, but I'm still willing to take it. Nothing is 100% confirmed truth, but I feel mine is the closest.


Loki, sounds like you've just been in one of those churches that preaches more doom and hate over being honest. (yes, there are normal, good, not power hungry churches out there, not all of them are phony and crap like Benny Hinn) I've copped a bit in my past, and really have had difficulty with churches that are simply way too extreme. A rough road, but I think I've managed. Anyway, I am really intrigued by your story, so I'll be happy to hear it, but maybe through a PM to avoid everyone cussing at everything and saying 'thats the God of Christianity for you..'.

AaronD
December 6th, 2007, 11:55 AM
Chances are my religion is wrong, but I'm still willing to take it. Nothing is 100% confirmed truth, but I feel mine is the closest.

Then it's about time you did a study of other religions... and your own. Your religion already IS wrong about several things. Flat earth, anyone? Or how about the ancient flood (the last time I read up on it, archeological evidence showed that it occured in a small, isolated area near Mesopatamia and that it didn't last nearly forty days)?

Loki
December 6th, 2007, 05:46 PM
Hey tatty. Sure, PM is fine by me. You can always email me too (I don't do IM!)

You might be surprised by the number of different folks I keep in email contact with.
I don't think I've had a decent conversation with a Satanist but I've spent many happy hours chatting to christians, atheists, agnostics, muslims, hindus, jews...etc.

Don't expect to change my views but I promise you this - I will listen to everything you have to say, then I'll go away and read-up on it. If what you say makes more sense than my view then I will explore it. Promise.

Just don't mention cricket! I've enough of that over at CoFSM :mad:

tatty000
December 15th, 2007, 12:20 PM
Then it's about time you did a study of other religions... and your own. Your religion already IS wrong about several things. Flat earth, anyone? Or how about the ancient flood (the last time I read up on it, archeological evidence showed that it occured in a small, isolated area near Mesopatamia and that it didn't last nearly forty days)?
I do look into other religions/beliefs.

Islam just fell through for me, way too, wrong. Buddism isn't even to do with God, but personal enlightenment. Judaism, pre-christianity, denying Jesus didn't really work for me. JW is too whack of doctrine from Christianity for me, so is Mormonism. Satanism leads to darwinism/atheism. I found so far through my personal studies that it is really 50/50 on evidence. Some choose to only look at atheism evidence, some only creationism/Christianity. Look at both, and it leaves you in a sticky state.
I realised that the minimal belief that I could ever take would be deism, but as I further researched Christianity, it became more of a truth and reality, to me.

littleteapot
December 15th, 2007, 07:23 PM
I do look into other religions/beliefs.

Islam just fell through for me, way too, wrong. Buddism isn't even to do with God, but personal enlightenment. Judaism, pre-christianity, denying Jesus didn't really work for me. JW is too whack of doctrine from Christianity for me, so is Mormonism. Satanism leads to darwinism/atheism. I found so far through my personal studies that it is really 50/50 on evidence. Some choose to only look at atheism evidence, some only creationism/Christianity. Look at both, and it leaves you in a sticky state.
I realised that the minimal belief that I could ever take would be deism, but as I further researched Christianity, it became more of a truth and reality, to me.You're looking into other religions through your christian lens. Suppose Jesus wasn't the messiah, then look at other religions.

AaronD
December 16th, 2007, 04:47 AM
I do look into other religions/beliefs.

Islam just fell through for me, way too, wrong. Buddism isn't even to do with God, but personal enlightenment. Judaism, pre-christianity, denying Jesus didn't really work for me. JW is too whack of doctrine from Christianity for me, so is Mormonism. Satanism leads to darwinism/atheism. I found so far through my personal studies that it is really 50/50 on evidence. Some choose to only look at atheism evidence, some only creationism/Christianity. Look at both, and it leaves you in a sticky state.
I realised that the minimal belief that I could ever take would be deism, but as I further researched Christianity, it became more of a truth and reality, to me.

Translation: "I deny your reality and substitute it with my own."

Kokoba
December 16th, 2007, 04:51 AM
Translation: "I deny your reality and substitute it with my own."
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."--David Hume

Though if your passion tells you the earth is 6000 years old or whatever, that's pretty fucked.

But if your passion tells you that somehow a deity designed the universe in accordance to all and any (working) law that science may develop, then hey, I won't argue with you. I've got better things to do.

tatty000
December 17th, 2007, 01:49 PM
Though if your passion tells you the earth is 6000 years old or whatever, that's pretty fucked.

But if your passion tells you that somehow a deity designed the universe in accordance to all and any (working) law that science may develop, then hey, I won't argue with you. I've got better things to do.
I'm about to say it in another thread, but I'll say it here too. I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. Nothing in the Bible, at all, says that. It is a conclusion that some Christians have drawn, but it is simply bull.

You're looking into other religions through your christian lens. Suppose Jesus wasn't the messiah, then look at other religions.
Most atheists look at Christianity through an 'atheist lens'.

I cannot deny the fact that Jesus existed, He did and if you deny He once lived, you might as well deny the fact that Caesar or Napoleon lived. But, I have looked at things with my faith in question. I still came back to the same spot though.

sudikics
December 17th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Uh, no, not at all. Jesus' existence is validated by te 4 gospels, and 2 other books. That's just his existence, never mind what he actually did.

For Caesar and Napolean, we have innumerable scrolls, books, paintings, sculptures, diaries, engravings, temples, momuments, need I go on?

Jesus may have existed, but it certainly is not definite.

littleteapot
December 17th, 2007, 08:45 PM
Most atheists look at Christianity through an 'atheist lens'.No, many of us (including me) have tried to imagine that the world exists exactly as described in the bible, and have found inconsistencies and problems.

sudikics
December 18th, 2007, 01:52 AM
I would second that, but it is really the second biggest understatement ever. The first is that humans are even slightly significant.

Because we're not. Sure, consciousness is important in quantum mechanics, but the universe would just be a better place for all if we just went away.

littleteapot
December 18th, 2007, 02:00 AM
Very true. The biggest problem I have with many organized religions is that they think humans are the center of the universe. When you tell them maybe we're not, they get all righteous and say you're testing God's love for you. No, we're just saying we don't deserve to be loved by something that powerful.

sudikics
December 18th, 2007, 02:17 AM
"We don't know one millionth of one percent of anything."

All too true.

Yet this is what gives rise to things like the Total Perspective Vortex.

Grounds to effect grief? I'm not so sure. It just puts us in our place. There's no reason that we should get all hissy-fit about it.

GeoffBoulton
December 18th, 2007, 01:11 PM
The biggest problem I have with many organized religions is that they think humans are the center of the universe.

The biggest problem I have with 'humans are the best' and 'God controls everything' is that it gives credibility to man's wilful destruction of the planet and everything else that lives on it. Of course, people do these things without religion too but if religions really stand for 'good' then why aren't they standing up to be counted?

sudikics
December 19th, 2007, 12:28 AM
The biggest problem I have with 'humans are the best' and 'God controls everything' is that it gives credibility to man's wilful destruction of the planet and everything else that lives on it. Of course, people do these things without religion too but if religions really stand for 'good' then why aren't they standing up to be counted?
I must say, that is rather like:

There is evil in the world.
If God is both willing and able, then why is there evil?
If God is willing but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If God is able but not willing, then he is not omnibenevolent.
If God is neither able nor willing, then why call him God?

A teacher of mine once gave me an answer to this: there is evil in the world because God wants us to fix it, so as not to take life for granted.


I don't particularly like that answer:
couldn't god just automatically fix that within us, and take away evil? Please?

AaronD
December 19th, 2007, 01:08 AM
That set of questions is Epicurus', I believe.

sudikics
December 19th, 2007, 01:10 AM
Yes, it is.

Atheists: Winning since 32 CE

GeoffBoulton
December 19th, 2007, 10:59 AM
Most atheists look at Christianity through an 'atheist lens'.

You mean by examining evidence and trying to find out the truth? How exactly is that a bad thing? ;)

Sister Faith
December 19th, 2007, 03:47 PM
An atheists lens is clearer than the rosé colored ones of christianity.

sudikics
December 19th, 2007, 04:58 PM
rose? I'd say stain-glass...

fosley
December 19th, 2007, 06:32 PM
Not everything your doing is wrong. But the sinful things we do tend to make us feel guilty anyway. It's not just about feeling the worst of the worst and a complete downer when you tell a white lie, it's about realizing the fact that sin is rebellion from God and it leads to harm, not good.Ok, so God designs a bunch of people to sin, and now we're calling it "rebellion"? Rebellion would be if God designed all of us to not sin, and we did it anyways. The problem with that is it would make God incompetent, because if a truly omnipotent, omniscient being wanted us to not sin, we wouldn't. That means either God isn't really a god in the Christian sense, or he wants us to sin. In the former case, fuck him because he's a screw-up too, and in the latter case, fuck him because he's a douche.

Sister Faith
December 19th, 2007, 07:24 PM
rose? I'd say stain-glass...

I meant rosé (a type of wine) though 'stained glass' works well too!

zach nAkAmUrA
December 19th, 2007, 11:51 PM
seems to be a little bit of a closed-minded interpretation of christian/jewish text. just because it says that the earth was created in 6 days doesn't necessarily mean it meant "days". ever heard terms like "in the day of the dinosaur", or "the day of feudalism" etc. ? could easily mean 6 different periods of evolution.

just the fact that genesis got the general procession of creation right according to contemporary science seems like it could be a sign that ancient history according to holy texts like the torah and bible may not be entirely wrong. think about it,

creation of earth... earth is void... (asteroid)
creation of light.. (earth encounters sun and joins orbit)
creation of day night cycle, seasons etc. (from joining orbit)
creation of water creatures (where did life originate? bacteria etc in water.. fish etc, then amphibeans evolved from fish or whatever simple creatures were in the sea)
creation of land animals
creation of us (we know we've only been on the earth for a short time in comparison to how old it is.)

im not saying christian or jewish doctrine is infallible or that every bit of factual evidence in the bible is correct. as a matter of fact im not a christian or a jew at all (no religious upbringing at all). i never went to church as a kid and i dont go now. just think maybe some of the religiously athiest on here cant dilleniate between jerry falwell and actual scripture. also u cant forget that the bible was translated from hebrew and latin into german and then english in most cases. a whole hell of a lot of difference arises when translating.

did u know the word for "hell" is the same word that means grave and pit in hebrew? as a matter of fact, when the bible was translated from hebrew and latin in the middle ages, the translators pretty much decided arbitrarily where to right "hell". and all our concepts of hell come from other people's ideas of "hell" during the middle ages. so if u read actual scripture there is no defination of hell and there may not even be an existance of a place where ppl go who are "bad". it could just be the grave and what jeebus meant when he said the stuff at the pile of burning shit outside whatever city that was, is that ur pain, death, and suffering die when u die. who knows? everything seems to point to "hell" being a tool of medieval priests to keep ppl in line. so if there is a god, u cant necessarily hold that against him if he never really created something like that.

zach nAkAmUrA
December 19th, 2007, 11:52 PM
sorry to write a book

AaronD
December 20th, 2007, 12:04 AM
Ah, the Day-Age Theory. Apologetics Press has an article on how and why it's wrong: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/301. Here's an interesting quote from the article:

The days of creation should be accepted as literal, 24-hour periods because of the problems in the field of botany if the days are pressed into becoming long periods of time. Woods has commented:
Botany, the field of plant-life, came into existence on the third day. Those who allege that the days of Genesis 1 may have been long geological ages, must accept the absurd hypothesis that plant-life survived in periods of total darkness through half of each geologic age, running into millions of years (1976, p. 17).

Morris has also addressed this issue:
The objection is sometimes raised that the first three days were not days as they are today since the sun was not created until day four. One could of course turn this objection against those who raise it. The longer the first three days, the more catastrophic it would be for the sun not to be on hand during those days, if indeed the sun is the only possible source of light for the earth. The vegetation created on the third day might endure for a few hours without sunlight, but hardly for a geologic age! (1974, p. 224).

zach nAkAmUrA
December 20th, 2007, 12:39 AM
u could be correct. the whole thing probably is wrong. but if u take a closer look at genesis and the first couple days. it says that god created light on the first day. that would be the sun. he apparently then created a firmament called "heaven" to seperate "waters" from that on the earth and that above the firmament. if u take this being the creation of a rudimentary atmosphere making it possible for plant life to form, then it could be possible.

this makes morris' assertion mute unless u ignore the creation of light in the first day.

the sun can be assumed to be there since day 1. on day 6, which morris assumes is the creation of the sun and the moon, it says that a light was created in the "firmament" (which could easily be considered the atmosphere) and that seperated the light of day from the light of night. (ie clouds and stuff could have been formed from the emergence of plant life made possible by the original rudimentary atmosphere).

i dont full-heartedly endorse anything the bible says, im just not about to count genesis out completely. the yom thing is interesting tho, and it does make sense if it's true that it's not mentioned the same way in the rest of the torah. i would assume if i was god that id have explained things as scientifically and logically as possible. i dont claim that the day-age theory is necessarily correct or that i believe in it in any way, but for the time being it doesnt seem to be entirely proved wrong.

rzm61
December 20th, 2007, 04:28 AM
Ok, so God designs a bunch of people to sin, and now we're calling it "rebellion"? Rebellion would be if God designed all of us to not sin, and we did it anyways. The problem with that is it would make God incompetent, because if a truly omnipotent, omniscient being wanted us to not sin, we wouldn't. That means either God isn't really a god in the Christian sense, or he wants us to sin. In the former case, fuck him because he's a screw-up too, and in the latter case, fuck him because he's a douche.


your forgetting the favorite defense for us being able to sin even though God really doesnt want us too. Free Will.

If you wanna go sin your heart out, your allowed. Its your choice to sin or not. However if you dont repent for those sins you will be sent to a hell of torture, fire and bad things for eternity. But he loves you.

Wallsy
December 20th, 2007, 07:06 AM
just the fact that genesis got the general procession of creation right according to contemporary science seems like it could be a sign that ancient history according to holy texts like the torah and bible may not be entirely wrong.

Just because you can interpret it to match the facts doesn't mean it's true or accurate. After the facts are known, the Bible can be shown to have predicted them. And so can The Lord of the Rings and the Goosebumps series. A prediction is only useful if it can be interpreted before the evidence is available, and if you continually reinterpret a statement then it can remain true no matter what evidence comes up, but it won't really be the same statement ast the end as it was at the start.

So yes, you can interpret "day" to mean something else, but what you're really saying is that the original text was wrong but you still want to believe it, so you're making excuses for it and wariping the meaning beyond all recognition just to try to hang on to it.


Wallsy.

zach nAkAmUrA
December 20th, 2007, 08:51 AM
first off, genesis was never meant to be a prediction it was meant to be an explanation. im pretty sure the torah was written well after the earth was formed.

secondly, im not a christian or a jew. im not TRYING to believe anything. im just not going to completely deny the possibility of something based on semantics. if the only thing u really have to change in genesis to make the creation of earth feasible is that the word "day" may have meant era in one place and 24 hour cycle in the next, its just not PROVEN wrong.

other than that, i really cant see anything fundamentally wrong with the progression from creation of sun to animals on earth. if u trace back steps in evolution, biology, chemistry etc, it sure doesnt seem completely wrong. n since there was no way to know about the beginning of the earth back when it was written, u have to admit that it was complete coincidence. it very well could've been, but without a little better proof than semantics im not ready to fully endorse the belief that it's outright wrong.

if u cant see that nitpicking a few words here and there isn't necessarily PROOF that its wrong, i believe you're endorsing the concept that there is no god with the same blind faith as somebody who "knows" there is. im just looking for the truth.

tatty000
December 20th, 2007, 12:45 PM
No, many of us (including me) have tried to imagine that the world exists exactly as described in the bible, and have found inconsistencies and problems.
What inconsistencies are you thinking of? I wouldn't mind addressing it. Not to change your mind, but to clear misconception.

Very true. The biggest problem I have with many organized religions is that they think humans are the center of the universe. When you tell them maybe we're not, they get all righteous and say you're testing God's love for you. No, we're just saying we don't deserve to be loved by something that powerful.

We don't have anything else to suggest is the centre of the universe, though. There are no other life forms, not another planet with living creatures on it which would give us reason to think we are below the most important here. If there is something else found that is actually intelegent, or even movable, I'd be happy to give my religion a very, VERY, good, hard look over.

You are right though, we don't deserve such love.

Ok, so God designs a bunch of people to sin, and now we're calling it "rebellion"? Rebellion would be if God designed all of us to not sin, and we did it anyways. The problem with that is it would make God incompetent, because if a truly omnipotent, omniscient being wanted us to not sin, we wouldn't. That means either God isn't really a god in the Christian sense, or he wants us to sin. In the former case, fuck him because he's a screw-up too, and in the latter case, fuck him because he's a douche.
What is God in the 'Christian' sense? If you're trying to say God is a picture of a hippie that is total 100% love for everyone etc, then you're far from it.

fosley
December 20th, 2007, 04:17 PM
No, I mean not god/s in the Deist sense, nor the Wiccan sense, nor. . .

The Christian god designed us to do exactly what we do. Then he punishes us for it. Free will doesn't exist in the eyes of an omniscient being.

littleteapot
December 20th, 2007, 09:02 PM
What inconsistencies are you thinking of? I wouldn't mind addressing it. Not to change your mind, but to clear misconception.Different parts of the bible have different views and have been shown to be written by different groups (because some people called God Elohim at the time of the Torah, some called God YHVH etc.). For example, the garden of eden and the 7 days seem repetitive in a few areas. Are these 2 stories in sequence or just 2 stories from 2 different groups mashed together? Also, the bible says that God never proves himself to man, but Isiah makes prophecies about the coming of the messiah which Jesus fulfills. Isn't that proof to the people who read Isiah and then saw him fulfill those prophecies?We don't have anything else to suggest is the centre of the universe, though. There are no other life forms, not another planet with living creatures on it which would give us reason to think we are below the most important here. If there is something else found that is actually intelegent, or even movable, I'd be happy to give my religion a very, VERY, good, hard look over.But the universe is so big and at times unkind to humans--what makes us, just a tiny part of it--the most important thing.You are right though, we don't deserve such love.We don't deserve it, but the all-good god gives it to us anyways?

AaronD
December 20th, 2007, 09:37 PM
There are no other life forms, not another planet with living creatures on it which would give us reason to think we are below the most important here. If there is something else found that is actually intelegent, or even movable, I'd be happy to give my religion a very, VERY, good, hard look over.

We live in the western spiral arm of a small galaxy in an unimaginably vast universe. There are billions and billions of galaxies, each containing trillions of stars, many of which are orbitted by systems of planets. Out of this incredibly vast array, we have yet to explore much farther then the bounds of our own infinitesimally small solar system. Are you really so arrogant as to believe that our speck of dust is the only one of these hundreds of trillions of unexplored planets which is capable of supporting sentient life?

rzm61
December 20th, 2007, 10:14 PM
We live in the western spiral arm of a small galaxy in an unimaginably vast universe. There are billions and billions of galaxies, each containing trillions of stars, many of which are orbitted by systems of planets. Out of this incredibly vast array, we have yet to explore much farther then the bounds of our own infinitesimally small solar system. Are you really so arrogant as to believe that our speck of dust is the only one of these hundreds of trillions of unexplored planets which is capable of supporting sentient life?

I agree. There is no way that we are the only intelligent lifeforms.
There has to be more out there.

sudikics
December 21st, 2007, 01:55 AM
Thank you for bringing Douglas Adams into the argument. Yes, letme bring up the original text:

Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.
Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.


We're insignificant, stupid little things. Here's another quotation, on the Total Perspective Vortex:

The Total Perspective Vortex derives its picture of the whole Universe on the principle of extrapolated matter analyses.
To explain — since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation — every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.
The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically in order to annoy his wife.
Trin Tragula — for that was his name — was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.
And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of time he spent staring out into space, or mulling over the mechanics of safety pins, or doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy cake.
"Have some sense of proportion!" she would say, sometimes as often as thirty-eight times in a single day.
And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex — just to show her.
And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from a piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife: so that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation and herself in relation to it.
To Trin Tragula's horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain; but to his satisfaction he realized that he had proved conclusively that if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.

littleteapot
December 21st, 2007, 02:38 AM
Earth

Mostly Harmless.

zach nAkAmUrA
December 21st, 2007, 02:45 AM
id have to agree.. itd be a little ridiculous to believe that we have the only life-sustaining planet in the universe. however, i dont believe we'll find life on another planet anytime soon. and by soon, i mean within the next 2 millenia or so if we don't destroy ourselves.

we'd have to travel til we found another solar system with a planet within the right parameters of a heat source with temperatures and chemical make-up able to sustain life. proverbial needle in the hay-stack.

anybody played through mass effect?

Wallsy
December 21st, 2007, 08:10 AM
first off, genesis was never meant to be a prediction it was meant to be an explanation. im pretty sure the torah was written well after the earth was formed.

The thing about predictions was an analogy. I was saying that just as any prediction can be shown to have come true if it's vague and generic enough, anyone can come up with the right answer to any question, so long as the answer is vague and generic enough and interpreted in the right way.

For example, if asked how old the Earth is, one could say "Ancient" and be absolutely correct. It's not a useful answer though.


if the only thing u really have to change in genesis to make the creation of earth feasible is that the word "day" may have meant era in one place and 24 hour cycle in the next, its just not PROVEN wrong.

But as already mentioned by others, that doesn't even work, and if it did, there are still a myriad of other problems to get around.


n since there was no way to know about the beginning of the earth back when it was written, u have to admit that it was complete coincidence.

Yep. The fact that that got it almost sort of right in some ways is largely a coincedence. The human mind is set up to see patterns, even where no patterns exist. If something looks like it could be a coincedence, but you think you see a pattern, you're probably fooling yourself.


if u cant see that nitpicking a few words here and there isn't necessarily PROOF that its wrong, i believe you're endorsing the concept that there is no god with the same blind faith as somebody who "knows" there is.

Please read up on burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Science_and_other_uses) and logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Logical_fallacy).


Wallsy.

zach nAkAmUrA
December 22nd, 2007, 08:24 AM
For example, if asked how old the Earth is, one could say "Ancient" and be absolutely correct. It's not a useful answer though.

You're drastically downplaying the coincedence. You act like it's a Nostradamus prediction. General idea = void planet > light > atmosphere > plants > other animals > humans. Fits don't it? If you can't see a pattern, you're choosing not to. I'm not claiming that it isn't purely coincidence. It very well could be, but you're not opening your mind to other possibilities, you're counting out everything the holy texts say as complete untruth because they're "holy" texts.

Ever thought of the possibility of alien space travel perhaps? Yea, I'm sure I'm gonna get labeled an idiot now for sure, but I don't care, it IS a possibility. Who's to say it's not possible something landed around the time the torah was written, told us the general idea of genesis and then it got written down. Accounts for the inaccuracies right? Human error. I'm just using that as an example as a contigency you may not have accounted for. Just because I claim genesis may have been right doesn't mean i think the whole bible is.

There IS a pattern. It COULD easily be coincidence, but it's there. "Touch of God" or not, it's still there.

I said it before, I'm not a Christian. I'm not trying to "save your souls" or anything. I honestly couldn't care less. So stop assuming I'm TRYING to believe in anything.

Also I know what burden of proof is and I'm familiar with logical fallacies. They're not exactly applicable in this situation, but whatever.

Your claim = Genesis is wrong
My claim = It may not be entirely wrong

Burden of proof is on you if I'm not mistaken.

sudikics
December 22nd, 2007, 02:16 PM
THis is when the fundies step in and start screaming: The Bible's our proof! It says so in the Bible!

zach nAkAmUrA
December 22nd, 2007, 07:11 PM
No, it's on you as there is boat loads of proof for it being wrong and none for it being right, and you are claiming it is right.

No actually. I never claimed it was right. If you've read over anything I've written, you'll see I never claimed the whole thing was correct, just that it was a possibility. It's a hell of a lot easier to prove that it's POSSIBLE than to prove it isn't. And that's all I ever claimed.

You guys are so damn steadfast in your belief in athiesm, you can't admit that any part of it is a possibility. If you look at the situation scientifically, you'll see it's ubsurd to claim that it ISN'T a possibility, because you can't "know". You're just like the fundies in that sense. And yea, the burden of proof is on you in that situation. If I claimed it was right, burden of proof would be on me, but like I've said a million times and you guys can't seem to comprehend is that it isn't what I've claimed. I claimed it was a possibility, however unlikely it may be.

AaronD
December 23rd, 2007, 03:08 AM
No actually. I never claimed it was right. If you've read over anything I've written, you'll see I never claimed the whole thing was correct, just that it was a possibility. It's a hell of a lot easier to prove that it's POSSIBLE than to prove it isn't. And that's all I ever claimed.

You guys are so damn steadfast in your belief in athiesm, you can't admit that any part of it is a possibility. If you look at the situation scientifically, you'll see it's ubsurd to claim that it ISN'T a possibility, because you can't "know". You're just like the fundies in that sense. And yea, the burden of proof is on you in that situation. If I claimed it was right, burden of proof would be on me, but like I've said a million times and you guys can't seem to comprehend is that it isn't what I've claimed. I claimed it was a possibility, however unlikely it may be.


Then again, you're addressing all of us over the comments of two individuals. I get what you're saying, and I agree that every legend has a grain of truth in it. I just think that that grain may be extremely small and hard to find.

GeoffBoulton
December 23rd, 2007, 11:35 AM
You guys are so damn steadfast in your belief in athiesm, you can't admit that any part of it is a possibility. If you look at the situation scientifically, you'll see it's ubsurd to claim that it ISN'T a possibility, because you can't "know".

It is easy to take ANY story, ignore the bits that don't fit and then say there is the possibility that it matches reality because of the bits that do fit. This is exactly what Creationism/Intelligent Design is all about.

If you look at Genesis as a whole it most certainly does not fit the scientific facts or explanations. Light on Earth before there is a sun. The moon is a light. All celestial lights are fixed in the firmament. We know that 'sea' creatures such as dolphins are descended from land animals yet Genesis says all the sea creatures were created at the same time and before those land animals. We have birds created on the same day as the sea creatures, again before the land animals from which they descended. And so on, and so on .....

It's nothing to do with having a steadfast belief in atheism and everything to do with the fact that Genesis, taken as a whole, is just plain wrong.

An example:

"I have fairies at the bottom of my garden."

I exist. I have a garden. Therefore, given that most of the facts are true, there is at least a remote possibility that my sentence is a true reflection of the real world and there really are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Would anyone realistically entertain that possibility? No, and that is why we don't entertain the possibility that Genesis represents anything more than the thoughts of primitive men trying to explain a world that they didn't understand.

Wallsy
December 23rd, 2007, 12:46 PM
I never claimed the whole thing was correct, just that it was a possibility.

It's also possible that there are unicorns outside my house right now, but I'm not going to waste the time going out and looking.


If you look at the situation scientifically, you'll see it's ubsurd to claim that it ISN'T a possibility, because you can't "know".

Of course it's a possibility. It's a possibility that the pyramids were built by aliens, but since there are explanations that fit the evidence far better, I'm going to go with those.


If I claimed it was right, burden of proof would be on me, but like I've said a million times and you guys can't seem to comprehend is that it isn't what I've claimed. I claimed it was a possibility, however unlikely it may be.

No, what you claim is that it's too close to accurate to be a coincedence. You fail to provide any evidence to back up this assertion, and the rest of us agree that no, it's not too close to be a coincedence, because that's exactly what it is.

As Geoff pointed out, the order of creation is not as close to correct as you seem to think it is, and picking out small snippets of a text and using those to justify the rest of it is blatantly stupid. You could use the same technique to justify a belief in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.


Wallsy.

zach nAkAmUrA
December 23rd, 2007, 10:18 PM
Aaron, you're right. I owe you an apology, I didn't mean every athiest in the forum, it was meant mostly for wallsy and the reason being that there was no evidence provided on his behalf. You gave a link and it was informative. All I got from Wallsy was a reply stating you can make sense of any story and that there are "a myriad of other problems". I came to the forum for a good natured debate and information not to be told I'm wrong because there are problems and not told what they are.

Geoff, thank you for actually arguing the point. And you're right, the fact that celestial matter is fixed in the "firmament" doesn't make sense wrong. The fact that dolphins evolved from land mammals is correct, but to be fair, if you told somebody the general idea of evolution in a nut shell it would seem feasible to leave out a few strange cases. For the most part, animals evolved from sea creatures. And yes, it does say birds were around at the same time as the creation of sea creatures which is also wrong and probably the most glaring innacuracy I noticed in genesis. I read over the creations on the 4th day and it could also be construed as a differentiation between the lights of day and night, which could refer to the development of a thicker atmosphere. Yes, I know, it's far-fetched and I'm not claiming it's right. But for the sake of debate I wanted to bring it up.

Wallsy, for google's sake man, I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS TOO ACCURATE TO BE A COINCIDENCE. WTF are you reading, honestly? I made the assertion that you have to claim that it is definately all coincidence in order to rule out the possibility that something told humans history of the earth and that I'm not ready to totally rule it out, because I have no way of knowing that. You don't either. Yes, it's unlikely. Yes, all probability points to NO. This I understand. But I figured this was a forum sanctioning debates of matters like these. I bring stuff up to hear your opinions and gather information. Geoff and Aaron both showed me reasons Genesis was wrong. All you did was tell me I was wrong in claims I never made, condesend me, and bring up logical fallacies and the burden of proof argument which YOU were WRONG about. Just the fact that something is mentioned automatically makes it a possibility. Did you ever try to understand the burden of proof? It has to be proven right or wrong.

Claim - There is a dragon in my backyard.
it's a possibility. I look in the backyard. No dragon. There is no dragon in the backyard assuming my sensory organs work properly. Claim is wrong.

I've already admitted that it's highly improbable. I'm simply interested in your thoughts. As I've stated before. I'm not claiming that belief in any form of god is correct or that any part of genesis was touched by god because I cannot know any of that.

Wallsy
December 24th, 2007, 05:21 AM
it was meant mostly for wallsy and the reason being that there was no evidence provided on his behalf. You gave a link and it was informative. All I got from Wallsy was a reply stating you can make sense of any story and that there are "a myriad of other problems". I came to the forum for a good natured debate and information not to be told I'm wrong because there are problems and not told what they are.

I didn't say what they were because others had already given examples, which you'd ignored anyway.


Geoff, thank you for actually arguing the point. And you're right, the fact that celestial matter is fixed in the "firmament" doesn't make sense wrong. The fact that dolphins evolved from land mammals is correct, but to be fair, if you told somebody the general idea of evolution in a nut shell it would seem feasible to leave out a few strange cases. For the most part, animals evolved from sea creatures. And yes, it does say birds were around at the same time as the creation of sea creatures which is also wrong and probably the most glaring innacuracy I noticed in genesis. I read over the creations on the 4th day and it could also be construed as a differentiation between the lights of day and night, which could refer to the development of a thicker atmosphere. Yes, I know, it's far-fetched and I'm not claiming it's right. But for the sake of debate I wanted to bring it up.

As I said, if you want to twist it and reinterpret it then yes, it's correct. If you read it as written it's just wrong.


Wallsy, for google's sake man, I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS TOO ACCURATE TO BE A COINCIDENCE.

That is exactly what you are claiming.


I made the assertion that you have to claim that it is definately all coincidence in order to rule out the possibility that something told humans history of the earth

Logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof).


All you did was tell me I was wrong in claims I never made, condesend me, and bring up logical fallacies and the burden of proof argument which YOU were WRONG about.

[citation needed]


Just the fact that something is mentioned automatically makes it a possibility.

Wrong. Any possible thing is a possibility, whether anyone mentions it or not. Impossible things are never a possibility, whether they're mentioned or not.


Did you ever try to understand the burden of proof?

Yes. Did you? If you did, you failed.


Claim - There is a dragon in my backyard.
it's a possibility. I look in the backyard. No dragon. There is no dragon in the backyard assuming my sensory organs work properly. Claim is wrong.

Actually, if you claim there is a dragon in your back yard, it's nbot up to anyone to prove you wrong, it's up to you to prove that you're right. This is how burden of proof works.


I'm simply interested in your thoughts.

No you're not. You're interested in being told what you want to hear.


Wallsy.

Thumper ™
December 27th, 2007, 02:24 AM
[Claim - There is a dragon in my backyard.
it's a possibility. I look in the backyard. No dragon. There is no dragon in the backyard assuming my sensory organs work properly. Claim is wrong]

The dragon could have concealed itself in the back yard.

fosley
December 27th, 2007, 05:09 AM
The dragon could have concealed itself in the back yard.I disagree. I think there is no back yard, just the dragon, but the dragon uses its magic to make you think there's a back yard.

Loki
December 27th, 2007, 03:23 PM
[Claim - There is a dragon in my backyard.
it's a possibility. I look in the backyard. No dragon. There is no dragon in the backyard assuming my sensory organs work properly. Claim is wrong]

The dragon could have concealed itself in the back yard.

Oh lordy we're in trouble now :D
Hiya mate!

fosley's right - Puff is a Magic Dragon and lives by the sea - no back yard.

sudikics
December 27th, 2007, 10:20 PM
This is very FSM-like...changing results.

Neither the dragon nor the backyard nor the sensory organs exist: only the FSM!

Wallsy
December 28th, 2007, 02:33 PM
Puff is a Magic Dragon and lives by the sea

He stays in his cave now though. :-(


Wallsy.