Your views on Christianity?

[pencilart3]

Pencil, while it's obvious you're no dummy, your argument reads like something you found on a website to use as a "gotcha" when arguing with scientists/atheists regarding abiogensis or evolution.

Ha ha, good guess but no.

[chopinlover01]

God, what have I reopened...

Most true scientists were/still are believers.


SHOTS FIRED!!!!!!!

Actually, no.
@Pencil As far as your odds of the likelihood of the universe being created and all that (argument from incredulity), here's something.
You're arguing that something had to come from nothing, and the universe is too great to come from nothing, yes?
So then, God did it, right? (We'll leave which God out of the equation for now.)
Well, that still doesn't answer the question. Your starting point was "how can something come from nothing"?
So then, what is the origin of God?
And you'll respond with "he's outside the laws of time, since he made them".
But quite simply, it doesn't work that way.
At any point in time that God existed, the rules of time apply to him. That includes the second he created everything. Meaning, he can't have simply always been here before time, because the time he existed is, by its very definition, inside the realm of time.
Now, let's say for a minute that God does exist. Which God? Why? Why is it Yahweh and not Allah?
You could say that Christianity is the only true religion, and that all others are false... But that's exactly what Islam says! And exactly what Judaism says! And exactly what every other major religion to ever exist has said.
You'd also be interested to know that the events the Bible depicts are actually depicted in the story The Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Torah by about 600 years, which predates the Bible by roughly 2000.
In short, the EoG was around loooong before any notion of Yahweh comes up.
So how can we be sure?
How can we be sure of any God existing.


That aside, your stats on abiogenesis is wrong.
Also, it isn't the heart of atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Nothing more.
Atheists tend to be science advocates, but that isn't entailed in atheism.

@Rubinsteinmad
Pascal's Wager was debunked long ago in this thread.
You could be believing in the wrong God and get punished. The true god could be Ba'al, or Thor, or any number of other gods or a God we have no clue about.
In order to satisfy Pascal's Wager, you'd have to be a follower of every single religion out there, and then some. [/b]

[tenk]

Ha ha, good guess but no.

This is your only takeaway from my post?

[rubinsteinmad]

! And exactly what every other major religion to ever exist has said.

Mon dieu! You obviously haven't done your research

But hey- what can you expect from someone who despices good concerti?  

[chopinlover01]

I should've been more accurate. Most major religions. Keyword being major.
Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and sometimes even Hinduism are so convinced they're right they enact their beliefs into law.

[pencilart3]

Chopinlover, you haven't explained how the universe came about without God. I say that God has always existed and he made the world. OK?

This is your only takeaway from my post?

no

[chopinlover01]

Chopinlover, you haven't explained how the universe came about without God. I say that God has always existed and he made the world. OK?

Frankly, I don't know. Neither does anyone for certain.
Scientists have got some interesting theories though, and they actually have evidence based reasoning.
But simply because we don't know doesn't mean we put in bronze aged mythology from desert nomads in the place where science has yet to answer (and will soon!).

[rubinsteinmad]

I should've been more accurate. Most major religions. Keyword being major.
Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and sometimes even Hinduism are so convinced they're right they enact their beliefs into law.

Not Buddhism? Not Daoism?


(Oh, and please don't mention the Boxer Rebellion. The Boxer Rebellion was mainly an effort by the Manchus to stay in power. IMHO, it was mainly a behind-the-curtain fight between the Manchurian leaders of the "Chinese" empire and the western world powers such as the U.K. and France. Religion was only used as a disguise by the Manchurians.)

[rubinsteinmad]

science has yet to answer (and will soon!).

Really?

bronze aged mythology from desert nomads

I think that there were already civilizations existing that had major cities; they adopted Christianity for a reason. Also, the "desert nomads" you speak about were mainly the Scythians and the Huns, who actually lived in the steppes, not the desert.


BTW, I LOVE Borodin <3333

[tenk]

I say that God has always existed and he made the world. OK?

Before we go any further, are you willing to accept on any level the possibility that this might not be true?

If you say no, the discussion is basically over. If that is the case I can only assume that you're posting here either to provoke people, or to try to sway them to your viewpoint. The latter seems unlikely to happen, and the former doesn't seem to fit your character.

If it's yes, then this forum is not the place to find such information. It is out there, believe me but you have to be willing to seek it out, rather than wait for someone to argue you into believing them.

[swagmaster420x]

(1) If you are a believer, and He exists, then you gain something.
(2) If you believe, but He does not exist, you gain nothing.
(3) If you do not believe, but He exists, you gain nothing (at best)
(4) If you do not believe, but He does not exist, you gain nothing.

Pascal's Wager sucks because:
1) I dont think this is anyones reason for believing (otherwise it's totally shallow)

2) If you believe, but He does not exist, you've wasted a good part of your life believing (not actually wasted. Just used up time praying, meditating, self-educating on the religion, attending ceremonies, etc. Whether those activities are intrinsically valuable is up to yourself). And you adapted/changed your mind and lifestyle, forgoing certain paths you may have otherwise taken.

3) If you do not believe, you get more free time, and license to sin and experiment. Plus, some people's lack of faith fuels their ambition (though in other cases, people's faith is what fuels their ambition).

[chopinlover01]

Not Buddhism? Not Daoism?


(Oh, and please don't mention the Boxer Rebellion. The Boxer Rebellion was mainly an effort by the Manchus to stay in power. IMHO, it was mainly a behind-the-curtain fight between the Manchurian leaders of the "Chinese" empire and the western world powers such as the U.K. and France. Religion was only used as a disguise by the Manchurians.)

Neither Buddhism nor Daoism are religions; they are both philosophies. The distinguishing factor is that there are not "Gods" for either one.
No clue what the Boxer Rebellion is.

Really?

Yes, really.
I think that there were already civilizations existing that had major cities; they adopted Christianity for a reason. Also, the "desert nomads" you speak about were mainly the Scythians and the Huns, who actually lived in the steppes, not the desert.
[/quote]
Major cities in the BRONZE AGE.
When we had nowhere near the technology we do today. Just the clothing you're (hopefully) wearing as you type this would've been thought of as sent down by God during that time.

[rubinsteinmad]

Before we go any further, are you willing to accept on any level the possibility that this might not be true?

If you say no, the discussion is basically over. If that is the case I can only assume that you're posting here either to provoke people, or to try to sway them to your viewpoint. The latter seems unlikely to happen, and the former doesn't seem to fit your character.

If it's yes, then this forum is not the place to find such information. It is out there, believe me but you have to be willing to seek it out, rather than wait for someone to argue you into believing them.

He was just trying to state his opinions, and show that he will not be gullible.

Actually, when I think about it, you guys (tenk, chopinlover01) are the ones who are trying to either provoke or sway; arguing against those who share their faith. However, I don't blame you. When I was a 2nd-grader, I was an atheist When people I disliked claimed they were Christian, I immediately jumped back and fought using words (i.e. about how much better atheism was; how much "scientific evidence" there was to prove against theism, etc.). Now I know that my actions were stupid; when I think back, I feel ashamed. Barely anything I said in my arguments are actually true; back then, as an atheist, I was not afraid to state my opinions as the truth. Fortunately, Ive changed a lot since that time.

[rubinsteinmad]

Just the clothing you're (hopefully) wearing as you type this would've been thought of as sent down by God during that time.

lol I should tell you about one of my PMs with pencilart3 lol:

Rubinsteinmad (aka Emily): Tomorrow is Picture Day, what should I wear?
Pencilart3: Nothing, it should get you some attention for once in your life.   

[chopinlover01]

You were in second grade. How intelligent could you really have been back then? How smart could ANY of us be about this topic back then?

[rubinsteinmad]

You were in second grade. How intelligent could you really have been back then? How smart could ANY of us be about this topic back then?

Yeah, but your fighting back against theists reminds me a little bit of my 2nd-grade years; except in a more mature fashion 

[outin]

Also, to lessen the tension on this subject, lets not forget the famous "Pascal's Wager".
...
(4) If you do not believe, but He does not exist, you gain nothing.

This is a fallacy. I personally have gained a lot in terms of my evolution as a thinking being.

For me part of growing up was getting rid of all kinds of superstitions. And for me that’s what religions are, superstitions. They are more or less harmful depending on how they are imposed. I find it a poor argument to claim Islam is inherently more violent or dangerous than Christianity, since both have been efficiently used to justify extreme violence and oppression (just think about the Spanish inquisition or crusades). Christianity just suits better with the western lifestyle, hence its popularity in certain parts of the world.

[outin]

...you haven't explained how the universe came about without God. I say that God has always existed and he made the world. OK?

Can you in turn explain to us how and where God existed before the universe or how and where he exists now? Wouldn't it be just as valid as an argument to say we simply believe in the theories of the scientists (while accepting that they are still incomplete and under development) than for you to say you simply believe that God exists and did what you say he did? In my view God was invented to explain things that the human mind could not. The need for that is dimisnishing, but obviously not disappeared.

BTW. I will just ignore you questions about biology, since I have actually studied genetics and find them worthless of answer. No offense.

[pencilart3]

I will just ignore you questions about biology, since I have actually studied genetics and find them worthless of answer. No offense.

I will just ignore your question about God, since I have actually studied religion and find it worthless of answer. No offense.

[outin]

I will just ignore your question about God, since I have actually studied religion and find it worthless of answer. No offense.

Fair enough. Although I have also studied religions, it was compulsory when I was young.

[timothy42b]

Pencilart,

You are obviously well intentioned and earnest.

However you have uncritically accepted what you've been fed.

Some of the people supplying you with these ideas are similarly misguided; others know better and are deliberately lying to you.

Typically what happens to young people is that by about Thanksgiving of their freshman year in college they realize they've been lied to, and they leave their church forever out of resentment.  At least, Southern Baptists say they lose 85% of their youth that way.  But it wouldn't happen that way if A) their religious leaders didn't mislead them OR B) they took some responsibility for critical thinking themselves before that happened.   

A couple of small points to think about:

You are arguing fiercely about abiogenesis.  Abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution and if anybody tells you it is, or lets you assume that, RUN AWAY!  They have no integrity. 

Science has no theory for abiogenesis though there are some preliminary hypotheses;  it remains an unknown. 

Evolution does not start until life begins.  The evidence for evolution (once life begins) is overwhelming.  So it really doesn't matter how much difficulty you have with abiogenesis.  It may not even exist - quite possibly God Did It, and then left life to assemble itself after that. 

Secondly, creationists never do the math right, and probability is their worst area.  Some of their writers actually do know how.  They lie to the faithful considering A) the faithful are too trusting ever to check, and B) the faithful are rarely smart enough anyway.  Most of them make a good living relying on those two assumptions.  And before you get offended, remember it's not me making those assumptions, it's the folks at AiG and ICR. 

Here's an example.  Take ten pennies and toss them until you get 10 heads.  Would it take you a long time? 

Depends on how you did it.  If you keep tossing 10 at a time, the way creationists claim it works, you'll get 10 eventually, if you don't die of old age or boredom first.  If you keep one head each time you toss, the way biologists think evolution works, it might take you 30 seconds or so. 

[ahinton]

Susan.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Susan.

Best,

Alistair

I think it's more likely he's just an honest kid that's only been told one side of the story.  Possibly homeschooled. 

Susan was a little more extreme.  Make that a lot more extreme.  I wish I knew what happened to her. 

[swagmaster420x]

Here's an example.  Take ten pennies and toss them until you get 10 heads.  Would it take you a long time?  

Depends on how you did it.  If you keep tossing 10 at a time, the way creationists claim it works, you'll get 10 eventually, if you don't die of old age or boredom first.  If you keep one head each time you toss, the way biologists think evolution works, it might take you 30 seconds or so.  

I think in the example pencil art used, flipping 10 at a time makes more sense.

Ur example is facile

By the way pencilart, I really wanna know what your PhD reference/friend thinks of all this. Show him the responses in this thread and tell me what he says verbatim.

[timothy42b]

I think in the example pencil art used, flipping 10 at a time makes more sense.

Can pencilart explain what a codon is without googling?  This is directly relevant to that problem.  If not we can not explain this example to him/her. 

[swagmaster420x]

Fk science, it's too hard

Where did codons come from ?!??!

[visitor]

the questions are starting to go back to the right neighborhood.  the questions need to be framed in the context of various lenses (it's multi disciplinary, need to have adequate background/buy in with physics, computer science (ie computational biology), ecology, and molecular bio/gen., virology etc).

bunch of folks that pin their argument on and only on the fossil record is like trying to vacuum under the coffee table when the couch is on fire. You gotta address more important and fundamental questions and common premises first.

there is convenient ignoring (ie recall selection bias) of data on the side of genetic basis for phenotypic diversity both between and within species, the amino acid example is naieve, for wanting to find evident of a spontaneos complex sequence or protein, however it can be possible for a very simple molecule, group of them, and/or mechanism to give rise to much more diverse and highly complex processes later.  

note, i'm not making a point one way or the other, just pointing out the issue with omitting the volumes of data showing micro structure homologies all over the place,  and both preserved and similar but fundamentally different mechanisms for a host of basic and accepted/proven physiological  processes (and to further complicate matters there's the effect of viruses  as potential and powerful catalysts for change and adaptations at the genetic level as well).

[thalbergmad]

However you have uncritically accepted what you've been fed.

Almost certainly the case and in his defence, it can be very uncomfortable to challenge those to which you have a lot of respect for. However, if this is beyond him, he will forever be letting others do his thinking for him.

Thal

[timothy42b]

Thal, it's the US, where we have a presidential candidate who believes the Biblical Joseph built the pyramids to store grain for Egypt in case of famine. 

[chopinlover01]

and he's a neurosurgeon who doesn't believe in evolution..

[thalbergmad]

Thal, it's the US, where we have a presidential candidate who believes the Biblical Joseph built the pyramids to store grain for Egypt in case of famine. 

Good God, i was not aware of this. He really is completely insane.

Not even von Daniken is that demented.

Thal

[pencilart3]

Too bad for you, that carson is leading the polls. At least he's read SOME history books and knows that socialism actually DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL. Heck sanders probably thinks that the pyramids are made of sand.

[timothy42b]

The US is pretty scared of socialism, making it easy for anybody use it as a campaign slogan.

There's actually only one day a year when it's a positive thing.  We celebrate the birthday of the world's most famous Socialist Jew - on Dec 25th. 

[timothy42b]

. At least he's read SOME history books and knows that socialism actually DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL.

He's not running on an anti-socialism platform, he's running on a Converted_Christian platform.  Whether it's really true or not. 

[ahinton]

Good God, i was not aware of this. He really is completely insane.

Not even von Daniken is that demented.

!!!

Best,

Alistair

[pencilart3]

“We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies.” ~ Bernie Sanders

Not even von Daniken is that demented.

[timothy42b]

“We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies.” ~ Bernie Sanders

Why is that bad?  Fossil fuels are obviously a finite resource, we can start the path to transform now, or wait until they're completely gone and the crash comes.

Oh, wait, you are sure that will never happen, because you'll be raptured in the next couple of years.  Never mind. 

[tenk]

Too bad for you, that carson is leading the polls. At least he's read SOME history books and knows that socialism actually DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL. Heck sanders probably thinks that the pyramids are made of sand.

Makes me wonder exactly what books you have been reading...

Also, are you willing to answer this?

Before we go any further, are you willing to accept on any level the possibility that this might not be true?

If you say no, the discussion is basically over. If that is the case I can only assume that you're posting here either to provoke people, or to try to sway them to your viewpoint. The latter seems unlikely to happen, and the former doesn't seem to fit your character.

If it's yes, then this forum is not the place to find such information. It is out there, believe me but you have to be willing to seek it out, rather than wait for someone to argue you into believing them.

[timothy42b]

Makes me wonder exactly what books you have been reading...

Just fyi.

The construction of the Egyptian pyramids was from 2500 to 2100 BC.  That's dated by five different methods that agree.

PA's church teaches (and he may or may not believe) that Noah's Flood happened in 2338 BC, right in the middle of the construction project, without disturbing it. 

[thalbergmad]

If Hancock is right, the work on the Giza plateau was at least in the planning stage way before pencilfart and his mentors think the Universe was created.

Thal

[swagmaster420x]

This thread is turning boring

[pencilart3]

Hey tenk, if you prove that God doesn't exist, I will believe it.

[rubinsteinmad]

Hey tenk, if you prove that God doesn't exist, I will believe it.

+1

[rubinsteinmad]

If Hancock is right, the work on the Giza plateau was at least in the planning stage way before pencilfart and his mentors think the Universe was created.

Thal

Vous croyez trop de mensonges athées

[rubinsteinmad]

Just fyi.

The construction of the Egyptian pyramids was from 2500 to 2100 BC.  That's dated by five different methods that agree.

PA's church teaches (and he may or may not believe) that Noah's Flood happened in 2338 BC, right in the middle of the construction project, without disturbing it. 

No, that is NOT what church teaches. (Have you even BEEN to church?  )

Besides, due to possible translation errors in King James' Bible, Newton may have misunderstood what the Bibles' original text meant. Another possibility is that he miscalculated the time of the Creation.



Emily Angel


P.S. Anyways, even if you insist on believing that Christianity/Judaism teaches that the Flood happened in 2338 BC, fine. But still, that doesn't prove atheism to be right.

[emill]

Hopefully I don't offend anyone. If you tend to take offense to this, click away!
My view is summarized in one question: "Where is the evidence?"
We take the view of "some things don't have answers, therefore a supernatural being did it", and arguments like "you just have to believe", when you wouldn't take such arguments for really anything else.
Your thoughts? 

Threads with topics of religion and science or shades thereof always  end up in interminable discussions. Not that it should be discouraged but people should really have a more open mind and not be dogmatic or take indisputable positions.

Science relies on the evidence - measurements, observations, effects etc...  while religion (Christianity) relies on FAITH.  Not necessarily incongruent, but on many instances, depending on what particular phase or time in history, may seem to be.
There are just too many things labeled paranormal so much so that many observations regarding subatomic particles may just be, at the moment, in the realm of religion?

[thalbergmad]

No, that is NOT what church teaches. (Have you even BEEN to church?  )

What narrow minded nonesense. It may not be what YOUR church teaches but there sure are some that do.

Timothy42b is one of the most educated/widely read and reasonable tambo bangers i have encountered so your comments are beyond dumb.

Thal

[tenk]

Hey tenk, if you prove that God doesn't exist, I will believe it.

+1

You both appear to believe that demanding proof of a negative is a positive debate position. I mentioned it before, but I'll try again -- Russell's Teapot:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

If you're willing to demand that your belief be disproved, can you disprove there is a teapot orbiting the sun right now? Or Flying Spaghetti Monster? I know you're 16, but you have to at least understand why this position is nonsense...

[ahinton]

What narrow minded nonesense. It may not be what YOUR church teaches but there sure are some that do.

Timothy42b is one of the most educated/widely read and reasonable tambo bangers i have encountered so your comments are beyond dumb.

In just the same way (and for not dissimilar reasons) as not all Churches teach the same things identically, not all Christians have ever even witnessed a tambourine, let alone played one or heard one being played.

Tambourines have their place in musical life just as do banjos (the differences in both the instruments and the said place nevertheless being pretty large), so please let's not continue to try to promote the image of the former as somehow indelibly bound up in certain particular practical manifestations of "Christian" worship; you and others might well have heard tambourines played in Christian Churches at one time or another as well as in orchestral concerts at one time or another but, just as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and others didn't include them in their scores, they are by no means an essential constituent of Christian Church services either.

When Sorabji wrote his three vast symphonies for organ solo (the first of which is the baby of them at a mere 2 hours' duration) he had in mind for them the kind of English Romantic instrument that he knew in advance would in almost all cases be found only in English Christian Churches such as Westminster Abbey, Westminster Cathedral, St. Paul's Cathedral, the Church of St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol, Hereford Cathedral et al, so he knew that performances of them would likely take place in such environments, but that fact didn't even make him a Christian, let alone turn him into the organ composer's equivalent of the "tambo-banger".

You frequently malign the tambourine in threads such as this one; does it possess an inherent character that really turns you against it in all the possible contexts in which it might be encountered? Just curious!

Best,

Alistair

[rubinsteinmad]

What narrow minded nonesense. It may not be what YOUR church teaches but there sure are some that do.

Like which ones? 

Timothy42b is one of the most educated/widely read and reasonable tambo bangers i have encountered so your comments are beyond dumb.

Thal

Are yours any better?