The Belief wrote:The contients float on an infinite ocean which somehow has a layer of fire underneath it. The lands we know are surrounded by an infinite wilderness of ice and snow, beyond the Antarctic ocean, bordered by an immense circular ice-cliff. What we call the North Pole is in the center of the earth.
As good as that sounds, you're wrong.Smokeybacon wrote:Anything that has been translated and re-translated many times from multiple ancient and extinct langauges, and rewritten by many monks each of whom probably has their own interpretation of it, and is then split into multiple versions, which cause many wars between members of the same faith over exactly what the orginal version said... yeah I wouldn't take that as a source of any valuable information. Even from a historical point of view, it's bad.
Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants doesn't ring a bell?M1_Abrams wrote:As good as that sounds, you're wrong.Smokeybacon wrote:Anything that has been translated and re-translated many times from multiple ancient and extinct langauges, and rewritten by many monks each of whom probably has their own interpretation of it, and is then split into multiple versions, which cause many wars between members of the same faith over exactly what the orginal version said... yeah I wouldn't take that as a source of any valuable information. Even from a historical point of view, it's bad.
That proves absolutely nothing. You could write a book mentioning Obama, make it into a religion, and then 2000 years from now people could discover texts saying Obama is real.M1_Abrams wrote:And historically, archaeologists continue to, for example, find non-Biblical texts that confirm the kings mentioned in the Bible.
Can I quote this? I like it...makes sense to meLim-Dul wrote: I don't even know why I'm writing this though since religious people are, by definition, impossible to convince through rational arguments. Which of course is the nature of believing - if there was proof it would be knowing. Too bad some people claim it IS knowing though...
He's only real if you believe in him. If you do, then on Election Day, he'll slide down the chimney and leave a stimulus package in your stocking.boblol0909 wrote:You could write a book mentioning Obama, make it into a religion, and then 2000 years from now people could discover texts saying Obama is real.
Just do a quick google search for "inconsistincies in the bible" and then come back and explain it to me.M1_Abrams wrote:
As good as that sounds, you're wrong.
There are numerous ancient texts that confirm that the New Testament is no less than 99% the same and the Old Testament is not much less. And yes there are multiple versions of the English translation, but why not compare different ones and/or research what the original Greek meant?
And historically, archaeologists continue to, for example, find non-Biblical texts that confirm the kings mentioned in the Bible.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head right there. Unfortunately the Bible itself has been manipulated throughout time to say the desired text the editor wished it to say. That's just the way humans are. Thus the reason why there are so many religions in today's world. Most of the religions are just different versions of a supposed "master" religion that originated a long time ago. Humans changed the practices required, and BOOM, you have another religion. (Not saying Christianity is the only "right" faith at all or that it is the "master" religion)Desosus wrote:Most Christians know the bible cannot be taken as fact, but can appreciate the values and whatnot that their faith is based around.
Records are only as accurate as the record-keepers wish them to be. The Bible may exaggerate a few stories, however whose to say some scrolls or text may not have been "edited" or "disappeared" among Roman times. The Romans didn't exactly agree with Jesus or his teachings.Lim-Dul wrote: If you want to go with historic records, historians and archaeologists can't even be certain that Jesus existed since the Romans kept FAR more accurate and objective records than what is written in the New Testament and nowhere do they mention events like the ones described in the Bible.
That's only a few percent of most religious people that are by definition "extrema within the religion being practiced." The thing about religion is that you pointed out is that it is a BELIEF. People will try to create a practical fact out of information that is merely implied information rather than proven facts. Some things in the Bible have been proven, others have not. Like I said before, I believe in God, that there is only one God, and that Jesus Christ was a true disciple of God and his Son. Can I prove them? No, but that is exactly why religion is defined as a BELIEF and a practice rather than scientifically proven facts.Lim-Dul wrote:I don't even know why I'm writing this though since religious people are, by definition, impossible to convince through rational arguments. Which of course is the nature of believing - if there was proof it would be knowing. Too bad some people claim it IS knowing though...
I do this quite a lot so you'll excuse me if my reply is a bit verbose. You say you see the bible as a moral guideline. But that you also don't follow everything in it. So how do you choose which bits to follow and which ones to ignore?KingCrab wrote: As a Christian myself, I see the Bible as more a moral guideline to live your life. It told the stories of an age of time and about several people. The most prevalent being Jesus Christ. Now, as for beliefs I do believe there is a God and I do believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God sent down from the Heavens to cleanse us. However, I am not the type of Christian who will shove my beliefs down your throat. Neither will I take everything literally in the Bible. If I did that, I would be just as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church idiots that decided to give Christians a bad name with their radical nature.
What people seem to forget is that while freedom of religion is a human right, that does not mean what most people are interpreting it as these days. You are free to believe whatever the hell you damn well please but you are NOT allowed to DO anything based on an argument of "but that's my religion". Once you start using religion as a rationalization for doing something that affects other people, such as basing laws on religious material, then you're going too far.KingCrab wrote: That's only a few percent of most religious people that are by definition "extrema within the religion being practiced." The thing about religion is that it is a BELIEF. People will try to create a practical fact out of information that is merely information rather than proven fact. Some things in the Bible have been proven, others have not. Like I said before, I believe in God, that there is only one God, and that Jesus Christ was a true disciple of God and his Son. Can I prove them? No, but that is exactly why religion is defined as a BELIEF and a practice rather than scientifically proven facts.
Being a scientist, this actually makes me angry. The statement of "science can't explain everything" is wrong. Science has not yet explained everything. But for all you know, it may well explain everything in the future. Will it at some point in the future explain everything? I doubt it. But it does a hell of a better job of explaining ANYTHING than religion does, unless you wish to use "explaining" as a verb to mean tossing out any random idea and treating it as fact. During the time of the writing of the bible humans as a race didn't know much about the world around them. They did however have a yearning for knowledge and so they "explained" it to the best of their abilities. Now we know a hell of a lot more than we used to. All the stuff that religions tried to explain by invoking sun gods and thunder gods, science explains a lot better.KingCrab wrote:However I would like to point out that there are things in this world that can not be explained with mere science. The human is restricted in its capability to gain access and understand this knowledge though.
That's rather shortsighted of you, you playing Minecraft also slows down our progress as a species, however slightly. The establishment of protestantism as state religion in the Netherlands and Denmark significantly boosted the literacy rates, the expansion of universities and the output of "science" as a whole.Religion is a poison that infects us and slows down our progress as a species. It has done so in the past and it will continue to do so until people stand up and say "believe whatever you want, but don't tell me or anyone else what we can or can't do based on your irrational beliefs".
My morals are based upon a lot of the teachings of the Bible. So in essence, the very basis of where my morals originated come from the Bible. This is why I refer to it as a guideline rather than a strict pamphlet of which you must obey every thing it tells you to do. In Christianity, the belief is that even though we are recommended to follow the Bible the best we can, God knows we are only HUMAN and he forgives us and still loves us. Humans make mistakes, simple as that.Desosus wrote: I do this quite a lot so you'll excuse me if my reply is a bit verbose. You say you see the bible as a moral guideline. But that you also don't follow everything in it. So how do you choose which bits to follow and which ones to ignore?
Presumably, the answer is that you use common sense. So you're using your own moral compass to decide what's right and what's wrong as opposed to what's written in some book that was originally codified by a bunch of illiterate desert nomads.
So in reality, it means almost nothing to say that the bible is a moral guideline.
In addition to that, I dislike the attitude that SOME religious individuals have when discussing morality in that they imply (though rarely say out loud) that religion has some sort of exclusive right to morality. As if those of us who don't believe in a god run around murdering and pillaging all the time.
In addition, there also seems to be an attitude of "I don't murder people because the bible says not to" as if they'd be killing people if it wasn't written not to in a book...
Totally Agreed. This brings us to the Crusades when basically the Catholic nations claimed "God wills it!" as a reason to back their actions. Most of us know that it was merely a scapegoat to protect the truth of the Crusades being a "treasure hunt" for more land and riches. Though the actions of the past should not define the religion in today's world.Desosus wrote:What people seem to forget is that while freedom of religion is a human right, that does not mean what most people are interpreting it as these days. You are free to believe whatever the hell you damn well please but you are NOT allowed to DO anything based on an argument of "but that's my religion". Once you start using religion as a rationalization for doing something that affects other people, such as basing laws on religious material, then you're going too far.
I'll reply to this by first saying no insult was meant on scientists or anybody in the field of science.Desosus wrote:Being a scientist, this actually makes me angry. The statement of "science can't explain everything" is wrong. Science has not yet explained everything. But for all you know, it may well explain everything in the future. Will it at some point in the future explain everything? I doubt it. But it does a hell of a better job of explaining ANYTHING than religion does, unless you wish to use "explaining" as a verb to mean tossing out any random idea and treating it as fact.
That is the instinct of human nature. We are always trying to get bigger and badder and expand our knowledge.Desosus wrote:If everybody always thought "science can't explain that", science would never progress.
Honestly, I find that a very narrow-minded concept and quite harsh. I actually seem to see science as a poison. People will manipulate science for their own gain rather than the gain of mankind. The constant advancement of weapons is a good example since mankind is "chasing its own tail" to constantly outdo itself and become the greatest the thing in the world. I'm sure we could have solved world hunger or even possible space colonization to confront the world overpopulation problem. However, you can see we obviously would rather combat each other than commit our time to this. Thus, once again, is just human nature.Desosus wrote:Religion is a poison that infects us and slows down our progress as a species. It has done so in the past and it will continue to do so until people stand up and say "believe whatever you want, but don't tell me or anyone else what we can or can't do based on your irrational beliefs
cdferg wrote:Whether you believe in God or not, He believes in you.
You are losing track of what is the reason and what is the means. Desosus will easily render the point you make here moot by pointing out that the need for advancements in weaponry stem from religious conflicts. Disagreement over scientific issues have never resulted in armed conflict.Honestly, I find that a very narrow-minded concept and quite harsh. I actually seem to see science as a poison. People will manipulate science for their own gain rather than the gain of mankind. The constant advancement of weapons is a good example since mankind is "chasing its own tail" to constantly outdo itself and become the greatest the thing in the world. I'm sure we could have solved world hunger or even possible space colonization to confront the world overpopulation problem. However, you can see we obviously would rather combat each other than commit our time to this. Thus, once again, is just human nature.
Point taken. As to keep this from going on forever and forever, I'm deciding to step down from this debateSanjar Khan wrote:You are losing track of what is the reason and what is the means. Desosus will easily render the point you make here moot by pointing out that the need for advancements in weaponry stem from religious conflicts. Disagreement over scientific issues have never resulted in armed conflict.Honestly, I find that a very narrow-minded concept and quite harsh. I actually seem to see science as a poison. People will manipulate science for their own gain rather than the gain of mankind. The constant advancement of weapons is a good example since mankind is "chasing its own tail" to constantly outdo itself and become the greatest the thing in the world. I'm sure we could have solved world hunger or even possible space colonization to confront the world overpopulation problem. However, you can see we obviously would rather combat each other than commit our time to this. Thus, once again, is just human nature.
So the bit about not murdering is common sense so you don't get that from the bible. How about slavery which the bible doesn't condemn? Or the treatment of women? Do you follow the bible in regards to those or do you follow common sense.KingCrab wrote: My morals are based upon a lot of the teachings of the Bible. So in essence, the very basis of where my morals originated come from the Bible.
Also, to reply to the statement about common sense, isn't it really a "Duh" conclusion that you shouldn't kill or perform any extremity of a task that would go against what we as a society has deemed as immoral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionKingCrab wrote: If science can prove everything, then I want you to show me proven facts right now of why humans are on this earth.
Why don't you answer those questions based on religion? Can you provide any reasoning why it should be believed? Can you account for the uncountable number of so called "end of the world" prophecies that haven't come true? Were they just following the wrong pamphlet? What makes any one prediction like that better than any other?KingCrab wrote:I want you to tell me the exact date of the end of the human race. Tell me when why life will end.
Due to the laws of physics, when a coin is flipped, it will usually either fall heads or tails. The statistical probability of it landing on either heads or tails is roughly 50:50.KingCrab wrote:Explain to me the odds of flipping tails or heads on a coin.
Wrong. You're making a presumption there that just because something cannot be tested at the moment means that we will never be able to.KingCrab wrote:There is a problem with science in the sense that their are many things that can not be tested nor proven with data. Not once did I mention religion as being a supplement to fill those gaps of missing concepts that can't be explained.
I own an invisible albino midget elephant that shits gold.KingCrab wrote:It's also hypocritical and a logical fallacy to disprove something just because you can't see it there isn't any proof to prove of it.
No, they're not. Scientific theories are held to an extremely high standard. For something to be accepted by the scientific community as correct, it must be backed up by numerous observations and by experimentation.KingCrab wrote:Science in some areas along with religion are merely theories. They are concepts that are generally accepted among society.
Yeah, because that's all science does. It doesn't create medicine, it doesn't double the average human lifespan in the space of 100 years. You're talking about the influence of people on science. I'm talking about the influence of religion on people. People can be good or people can be bad. Religion can be good or religion can be bad. Science doesn't have motives.KingCrab wrote:Honestly, I find that a very narrow-minded concept and quite harsh. I actually seem to see science as a poison. People will manipulate science for their own gain rather than the gain of mankind. The constant advancement of weapons is a good example since mankind is "chasing its own tail" to constantly outdo itself and become the greatest the thing in the world. I'm sure we could have solved world hunger or even possible space colonization to confront the world overpopulation problem. However, you can see we obviously would rather combat each other than commit our time to this. Thus, once again, is just human nature.
Just because you believe in an imaginary friend in the sky doesn't make him real. What makes your god any more real than those?KingCrab wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the "sun god and thunder god" era is over. We advanced our culture to realize that some occurrences are obviously scientifically proven. I still believe in God and always will believe in God. Just because you can't see Him or prove His existence, doesn't mean he doesn't.
Faith, the same thing that causes you to believe that science will one day solve every problem and defend it as you have.Desosus wrote: Just because you believe in an imaginary friend in the sky doesn't make him real. What makes your god any more real than those?
That is just the most annoying thing there is to say about any ancient/supposedly holy text, which bits do we take literally, which bits should we not.You do realize that the Bible is not to be taken literally?
My morals consist of:Is it? Isn't it nice to have some form of assurance that what you are doing is correct? By using the bible as a means to fall back on you not only assure yourself of the approval of god, but more importantly from everyone else who follows it. Which is the point.
Bullcrap.However I would like to point out that there are things in this world that can not be explained with mere science. The human is restricted in its capability to gain access and understand this knowledge though.
1.) There is no reason why we are here, why would there be? It happened because of chance, some physics and some more random shit. Why would anyone need a reason for everything. Anyway, ah crap i started to type stuff to say about how this and that, but it leads to more and more, I can't be arsed. It suffices to say that there is not an answer to that question... because there is no reason.... but you asked the question... if you get that.If science can prove everything, then I want you to show me proven facts right now of why humans are on this earth. I want you to tell me the exact date of the end of the human race. Tell me when why life will end. Explain to me the odds of flipping tails or heads on a coin. There is a problem with science in the sense that their are many things that can not be tested nor proven with data. Not once did I mention religion as being a supplement to fill those gaps of missing concepts that can't be explained.
It's not the same.Faith, the same thing that causes you to believe that science will one day solve every problem and defend it as you have.
I dunno what i'm talking about now. Too many things arrive in my head while writing it's too annoying to keep editing it. It's difficult to word it correctly without contradicing yourself easily. GARAHAGHAGHGH RELIGION DEBATES MAKE ME 
I never said that.KingCrab wrote: Faith, the same thing that causes you to believe that science will one day solve every problem and defend it as you have.
In science, we have evidence for the things we believe. We determine whether something is true by finding empirical evidence, we don't just take it on faith that something is true.KingCrab wrote:Religion was created and is practiced by humans. Science advancements are conducted and tests are done by humans. Aren't they both influenced by the human race? Neither would exist without humans.
You make it sound as though that is it's purpose.Science adjusts its views based on observation, religion is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
1.)what...lolTrepvalkyrie wrote: 1.) There is no reason why we are here, why would there be? It happened because of chance, some physics and some more random shit. Why would anyone need a reason for everything. Anyway, ah crap i started to type stuff to say about how this and that, but it leads to more and more, I can't be arsed. It suffices to say that there is not an answer to that question... because there is no reason.... but you asked the question... if you get that.
2.) Um, no one can see the future, but when time travel is possible (hopefully it works both ways) I will tell you. Seriously time travel may exist in the future, it may not, but how are we supposed to predict that? If we see an asteroid the size of mars, I could tell you when we will all die, if it's the size of australia, maybe we could survive... unlikely but maybe, so I couldn't tell you. I can't tell you right now because that IS an impossible question as we have no data at all on this and so can't do ANYTHING. It's like asking me to say when i'm next gonna take a dump, I could hold it for 1 more second and ruin the prediction blah blah blah. Time travel i'm afraid is probably the only answer to this unless we see it coming.
3.) There is no reason for why life ends, a philosophical one definately no, but maybe we'll be killed by aliens, (again totally possible), but i'm not sure if thats what you mean.
4.) About the coin, many many factors will apply here but i'm sure it can be mathematically worked out, but it would be a total pain in the ass and i'm not sure if we have equipment that precise to measure the stuff needed for it yet to get an EXACT value, and at that small scale, every coin is very different. I do not know what the definition of a perfect coin is... it all gets complicated.
Any more silly questions you want to ask, so I can give the answer?
) Desosus wrote:I never said that.
This is implying to me that you believe it one day WILL explain everything, it just hasn't yet.Desosus wrote:The statement of "science can't explain everything" is wrong. Science has not yetexplained everything.
I'm saying it WILL, given an extreemely long period of time, which we probably won't have. Tell me one reason why it shouldn't, other than time/resource constraints.This is implying to me that you believe it one day WILL explain everything, it just hasn't yet.
Tell me why we shouldn't given enough time/resources. Saying that the "laws of physics won't allow it" is not good enough. Of course, time travel may be totally impossible. We just don't know yet. We've had such a short period of time in which technology has leapt forward so fast, we have no idea.Time travel is also a ridiculous notion
Actually what I was trying to get at there is that just because science HASN'T explained everything doesn't mean that it never will be able to. It might and it might not. Nobody can predict that.KingCrab wrote:This is implying to me that you believe it one day WILL explain everything, it just hasn't yet.
Ok, that's a bit more clear. Quite frankly, I do see a ridiculousness if every time something unexplained happened that it's explained by religious values. I am not AT ALL hinting at this. I am saying there are some things I do believe that happen without a scientific reason though. Do I believe a religious view is in order? It all depends. I absolutely believe in miracles and that God does things in our life that we don't realize. Other times I realize that now we will try to seek out that event and recreate it and ask "Why?". Thus using the scientific/technological part of it.Desosus wrote:
This is more commonly referred to in the circles that I hang around in as the "argument from ignorance". Boils down to "Well you can't explain how X works, therefore god did it, therefore god exists.". Can you not see the ridiculousness of that?
1.) Explain the absence of futuristic "tourists". You know the governments would abuse time travel (if it existed) to try and change events in history to their own liking.Trepvalkyrie wrote:Tell me why we shouldn't given enough time/resources. Saying that the "laws of physics won't allow it" is not good enough. Of course, time travel may be totally impossible. We just don't know yet. We've had such a short period of time in which technology has leapt forward so fast, we have no idea.
