Your View of God

[Åzurε]

Whoops, I missed a chunk of text intended for me. I tend to take silence as surrender, and while I can't always respond to everything, I have the opportunity to respond to this.

It seems like you're saying no other religion makes sense and that Christianity does (though perhaps I'm misunderstanding, given your unusual wording and seemingly irrelevant tautology). If that's the case, surely you must have an understanding of every other religion that exists (or even every other major religion)? Perhaps you could tell me the basic ideas behind them, for instance?

Well, pardon the redundancy, but I trust that you can make that particular sentence out. I don't believe I said "no other religion makes sense", although it is my stance that Christianity makes sense, practically, spiritually and historically. Most of my knowledge of other systems of living pertains to secularist thought and worldviews. I'll admit to not having intimate knowledge about other religions, but I know internal contradiction and ignorance of reality when I see them. Buddhism is more in tune with Christianity in terms of conduct, and I don't have evidence against it at the current time.

I can tell you right now that Christianity is no more credible than any other religion. I find it especially laughable that any Christian would outright reject Islam as implausible when it is to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism. If you believe in Christianity, so be it, but don't try to pawn it off as somehow more credible than other religions. That's just foolish.

What reason have I to believe if it's not more credible than anything else I know? Truth is harmonious with truth, regardless of anyone's opinion on it.

What is so immutably incredible about the faith of Christ that you pass it off like you do? Unless your position is that Christianity is on par with all other religions, in which case I direct you to the Greek pantheon, as an example of a religion concerned with the physical world whose assumptions were found to be fundamentally flawed, and thus rendered untrustworthy. Christianity has yet to be so deeply disproved that people cannot trust it's core tenants.

Besides, one of the main ideas in Christianity is "faith." If there was evidence, there would not need to be faith; to a believer, evidence should be irrelevant. If you want to convince people, you should try to show them that the ideals of Christianity are better (which I argue they are not; I find Hinduism to have the most agreeable ideals).

I'll never know where this stuff stems from. Faith is not belief without precedent. It is Biblically defined as assurance of the things not seen. I can sit in a chair and have faith that it will hold me up, because I can see that it's strong enough to do so. In the same vein, we have records of the existence of the core of our faith and no true reason to doubt them, and the visible effects of applying the teachings of Jesus Christ in our lives speaks to their power and harmony with reality. Evidence is never irrelevant- Every shred of God's designs, natural or personal, we can use to bring Him glory is worth it's existence and a credit to our faith.

Of course, you do have a point- structure and background doesn't mean much if I can't show people something else, but agreeableness is a selfish standard. It has effects on a person's life- changing them for the best, providing real freedom from guilt and giving the passion and cause to continue the rest of their lives in the way, and to spread it around. It's a religion of the mind and the heart.

 

[twocows]

Whoops, I missed a chunk of text intended for me. I tend to take silence as surrender, and while I can't always respond to everything, I have the opportunity to respond to this.


Well, pardon the redundancy, but I trust that you can make that particular sentence out. I don't believe I said "no other religion makes sense", although it is my stance that Christianity makes sense, practically, spiritually and historically. Most of my knowledge of other systems of living pertains to secularist thought and worldviews. I'll admit to not having intimate knowledge about other religions, but I know internal contradiction and ignorance of reality when I see them. Buddhism is more in tune with Christianity in terms of conduct, and I don't have evidence against it at the current time.

What reason have I to believe if it's not more credible than anything else I know? Truth is harmonious with truth, regardless of anyone's opinion on it.

What is so immutably incredible about the faith of Christ that you pass it off like you do? Unless your position is that Christianity is on par with all other religions, in which case I direct you to the Greek pantheon, as an example of a religion concerned with the physical world whose assumptions were found to be fundamentally flawed, and thus rendered untrustworthy. Christianity has yet to be so deeply disproved that people cannot trust it's core tenants.

I'll never know where this stuff stems from. Faith is not belief without precedent. It is Biblically defined as assurance of the things not seen. I can sit in a chair and have faith that it will hold me up, because I can see that it's strong enough to do so. In the same vein, we have records of the existence of the core of our faith and no true reason to doubt them, and the visible effects of applying the teachings of Jesus Christ in our lives speaks to their power and harmony with reality. Evidence is never irrelevant- Every shred of God's designs, natural or personal, we can use to bring Him glory is worth it's existence and a credit to our faith.

Of course, you do have a point- structure and background doesn't mean much if I can't show people something else, but agreeableness is a selfish standard. It has effects on a person's life- changing them for the best, providing real freedom from guilt and giving the passion and cause to continue the rest of their lives in the way, and to spread it around. It's a religion of the mind and the heart.

So you're saying other religions are "ignorant of reality" and "self-contradictory" and that Christianity isn't? Boy, have I got some news for you. How exactly was Greek tradition found to be "fundamentally flawed?" And who found that? Why is it more flawed than Christianity? How does Christianity make sense "practically and historically?" According to some "Christian scientists" (ha), the world is no more than 6000 years old. That's absurd! Even the most conservative scientific estimates put the age of the world tens of thousands of years older than that!

My point was that Christianity is no more believable than any other religion. Not sure what you have against the Greek mythos, but surely you can't pass off Islam, which has just as much evidence as Christianity (it even accepts Christ as one of the prophets of God, and all of our records show that pretty much everything that happened in the Koran is historically accurate). And Hinduism, which is one of the oldest religions still practiced? It's no more implausible than Christianity; quite the contrary, I find it infinitely more relevant to modern life.

I don't care what people believe in so long as they don't push it on others or use it to the detriment of others, but if you think for a second I'm going to let you get away with calling your religion more credible, you've got another thing coming.

 

[Phantom1]

OK, so I'm new, so shoot me in the head should I say something that's already been said.

There is no god. That is my view. I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and now I'm Atheist. Go figure. One of the things that get's most debates started with me is the idea of blind faith. I believe it's dangerous, and wrong.

If anyone wants to argue it with me go ahead.

 

[Åzurε]

So you're saying other religions are "ignorant of reality" and "self-contradictory" and that Christianity isn't? Boy, have I got some news for you.

Ah, the Google search. While I obviously cannot respond to each individual objection raised by your careless response, I will tell you that I was once directed to a page full of that sort of thing, and it was all easily explained. Many of the objection were taken out of context, or frankly just stupid. If you don't think it worthwhile to show me what your objections are, I won't bother working through them.

How exactly was Greek tradition found to be "fundamentally flawed?" And who found that? Why is it more flawed than Christianity?

Their pantheon was so wrapped up in the physical universe, when modern observation and science developed there was no reason to believe in Zeus' lightning or Hephaestus' forges. The gods had no power. Christianity's core isn't concerned with physical phenomena. It's concerned with the human condition.

How does Christianity make sense "practically and historically?" According to some "Christian scientists" (ha), the world is no more than 6000 years old. That's absurd! Even the most conservative scientific estimates put the age of the world tens of thousands of years older than that!

So it's simply absurd. That's not a rebuttal, that's an opinion. And would it be beyond God's ability to create a planet that shows signs of being aged upon creation? Certainly not. You also missed the practical side of the issue. It has improved the quality of life for a vast amount of people, be they adherents themselves or people who have come into contact with them. In the case of followers (not merely believers), they have the avenue to become the best person they can be, through wholehearted service to the God who cares, and who has a perfect understanding of human existence.

My point was that Christianity is no more believable than any other religion.

You have yet to effectively communicate that point.

Not sure what you have against the Greek mythos, but surely you can't pass off Islam, which has just as much evidence as Christianity (it even accepts Christ as one of the prophets of God, and all of our records show that pretty much everything that happened in the Koran is historically accurate).

One little link, which admittedly isn't my favorite. My favorite is the page where the Qur'an is quoted as saying the Torah, Psalms, and Injil are flawed, that the Qur'an is infallible by virtue of being the words of Allah, and that Allah gave humanity the Torah, Psalms and Injil. Historical inaccuracy is the tip of it, it's the content that has the worst issues.

And Hinduism, which is one of the oldest religions still practiced? It's no more implausible than Christianity; quite the contrary, I find it infinitely more relevant to modern life.

Have you read the New Testament for it's messages? The principles in place are very much relevant. What do you think is irrelevant about it?

I don't care what people believe in so long as they don't push it on others or use it to the detriment of others, but if you think for a second I'm going to let you get away with calling your religion more credible, you've got another thing coming.

Why would I bother with this if I wasn't convinced it was credible? If you think I'm just going to be quiet about a message directed at me undermining the value of my religion, you're the one who is mistaken.

 

[Myles]

Ah, the Google search. While I obviously cannot respond to each individual objection raised by your careless response, I will tell you that I was once directed to a page full of that sort of thing, and it was all easily explained. Many of the objection were taken out of context, or frankly just stupid. If you don't think it worthwhile to show me what your objections are, I won't bother working through them.

I think twocows gave that link because the way you phrased it, it sounded like you were saying no one had even made objections before. There are lots of contradictions. The most famous ones are probably:

Premise I: God is real
Premise II: God is omniscient (all knowing)
Premise III: God is omnipotent (all powerful)
Premise IV: God is omni-benevolent (all good)

When you're talking about infinity (i.e. infinitely knowing, powerful and good), there are lots of issues. Firstly, logic problems. "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" Either yes or no would mean he is not omnipotent.

The most famous one is, with these premises, evil cannot exist. The most frequent counter is freewill. But freewill fails for multiple reasons:

- "Can God create freewill that doesn't have evil?" If no, he is not omnipotent. If you use the no true Scotsman fallacy and say 'true freewill'. Then "Can God create true freewill that doesn't have evil?" If no, he is not omnipotent.
- "Does God have freewill?" If he does, then you can have freewill without evil.
- "Is there freewill in Heaven?" If so, then you can have freewill without evil because there is no evil in Heaven.
- "Can freewill exist with omniscience?" This is an interesting discussion. Either way it doesn't matter because of the earlier points.
- "If freewill can't exist without evil, can freewill exist with omni-benevolence?"

And if you believe the KJV is the one true bible (I think it's Catholics that do, although I'm not completely sure on that one), this quote from the bible violates omni-benevolence:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Context

In newer translations this is usually translated differently:

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Context

 

[TheUltimateSacrifice]

God to me is like when you've got a few people around the campfire exchanging tales and memories and when it's your turn you just smile in silence because you know the best things in life can't be explained, to even try would wreck the perfection.

 

[HarrisonH]

Their pantheon was so wrapped up in the physical universe, when modern observation and science developed there was no reason to believe in Zeus' lightning or Hephaestus' forges. The gods had no power. Christianity's core isn't concerned with physical phenomena. It's concerned with the human condition.

And now there's no reason to believe in Yahweh's creation of the earth, Yahweh's creation of humanity, animals, and everything. Your argument can easily be turned against you. Try again.

So it's simply absurd. That's not a rebuttal, that's an opinion. And would it be beyond God's ability to create a planet that shows signs of being aged upon creation? Certainly not.

This is silly. Why would he do that? Of course, the only answer you'll come back with is "God works in mysterious ways" or "It's to test our faith". Those aren't rebuttals, those are opinions.

Using the definition "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate", a young earth is absolutely absurd. We have an insane amount of evidence that backs up the estimates that the Earth is 4.54 billions years old. To think that it's younger than that because a book says so is nothing but absurd.

You also missed the practical side of the issue. It has improved the quality of life for a vast amount of people, be they adherents themselves or people who have come into contact with them. In the case of followers (not merely believers), they have the avenue to become the best person they can be, through wholehearted service to the God who cares, and who has a perfect understanding of human existence.

This is the "argument from utility" and it completely contradicts your arguing that God is real. See here for a wonderful response.

If it's tl;dr for you: That argument makes it completely irrelevant whether or not God is real, since a belief in him helps people. It serves nothing to support the statement "God is real".

One little link, which admittedly isn't my favorite. My favorite is the page where the Qur'an is quoted as saying the Torah, Psalms, and Injil are flawed, that the Qur'an is infallible by virtue of being the words of Allah, and that Allah gave humanity the Torah, Psalms and Injil. Historical inaccuracy is the tip of it, it's the content that has the worst issues.

One little link, which admittedly isn't my favorite, though it's written by Muslims about the Bible, which I feel is a good counter to yours written by Christians about the Quran.

And as a side note, your link had not one argument that could be turned against the Bible. Claimed inerrancy, being passed down orally before being written down, being modified by the person who put it together, grammatical flaws in the original manuscripts, fulfilled prophecy, scientific insights, historical inaccuracies. The Bible has the exact same problems.

Have you read the New Testament for it's messages? The principles in place are very much relevant. What do you think is irrelevant about it?

Wonderful. Relevance doesn't constitute fact. See above, "argument from utility".

Why would I bother with this if I wasn't convinced it was credible? If you think I'm just going to be quiet about a message directed at me undermining the value of my religion, you're the one who is mistaken.

As to its credibility, I can respond to this using a quote from yourself:

You have yet to effectively communicate that point.

 

[Phantom1]

There are so many contradictions in the Bible I remember making a song about it. Sadly I don't remember the song. I should dig that up sometime.

Now before you go arguing about my credibility. Let me find what I posted on another forum about this topic since I am too lazy to repost it on this forum, go figure on that. Here we go, and hopefully this will shed some light on other topics, I don't know, maybe.

About my learning, I was raised a devout member of the Roman Catholic Church. I went to Private Catholic school since I was in kindergarten. (Graduated from a school of the LaSallian rite, meaning I was taught by Christian Brothers) (graduated in 2009) Which meant I took a minimum of two theology classes a year, for 13 years, aside from a life of religion. Two relatives are priests, my grandfather is a respected member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and one of my best friends is joining the priesthood. I was an alter server for twelve years, received four of the seven sacraments. I also took a theology class in college as well as three philisophy classes..... I've also taken a World Religions course (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Judaism) and a class on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I wanted to major in theology in college, before I was forced to quit. And I'm atheist.

Now first off the Bible cannot be perfect, and contradicts itself so many times I won't bother to put more than a handful here.

The Bible is imperfect because humans have been trying to "perfect" it for centuries. Chapters have been removed, even entire Gospels.... For example the Gospel of Judas. (look it up)

In fact certain points contradict each other for example:

There are two versions of the creation story, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

First (Genesis 1:1-2:3)

(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-19

(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:27

(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-22

(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Moving to the Gospels and later:

Where was John the Baptist while Jesus was in Galilee?
John the Baptist was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

Can one pray in public?
Matthew 6:5-6 Jesus condemned public prayer.
1 Timothy 2:8 Paul encouraged public prayer.

If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen?
Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works."
1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."
This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."

When was Christ crucified?
Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15
"And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

Has anyone ascended up to heaven?
Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11
"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

Is scripture inspired by God?
"all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16
"But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.", 1 Corinthians 7:12, "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.

Edit something a thousand times and it will never have the same meaning. Belief in the Bible is nothing but circular logic.

We are all atheists in respects to Zeus and Thor. Their faith that their people had for deities were as strong as any faith or belief now with the God of Abraham. How could people with such faith toss away this faith and instead worship another? Proof that faith is fleeting.

I believe that religion, especially this blind faith, is dangerous. Millions have died in religious conflict, in the name of their respective gods. Isn't killing still killing whether or not it is in the name of a deity? Is it still wrong to believe that killing is bad? Should I walk over to my neighbor who is Muslim and shoot him, and when the police question me I say it was because he was a non believer? It sounds wrong because it is. Yet millions have died in the same conflict for the sake of faith and religion. The Crusades, the Spanish Conquistadores, the Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, Protestants vs. Catholics, Thirty Years War, Taipeng Rebellion, the Islamic notion of Jihad, the Jewish Milkhemet Mitzvah, the Christian Milites Christi, the Holocaust,the Reconquista, and many more.

There have been 123 wars considered to be purely religious, 66 of them involving Islam. That doesn't include the numerous conflicts, such as Terrorism and the issues between the warring tribes in Iraq, ro even the squabbles between warring tribes in Africa.

 

[Åzurε]

And now there's no reason to believe in Yahweh's creation of the earth, Yahweh's creation of humanity, animals, and everything. Your argument can easily be turned against you. Try again.

I understand your point. I just don't believe the assertions.

This is silly. Why would he do that? Of course, the only answer you'll come back with is "God works in mysterious ways" or "It's to test our faith". Those aren't rebuttals, those are opinions.

By what authority do you presume to give my opinion for me?

Using the definition "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate", a young earth is absolutely absurd. We have an insane amount of evidence that backs up the estimates that the Earth is 4.54 billions years old. To think that it's younger than that because a book says so is nothing but absurd.

I certainly don't know all of the ins and outs of creating a planet suitable for life, but God, being omnipotent and extratemporal could have produced Earth however He pleased. If He required that it be aged or given the appearance of age He could have made it so, it's not hard to understand. For today, I lean towards the created Earth having some kind of physical oldness to it, rather than Young Earth Creation. Not that the how and why of the Creation is a matter of doctrine anyhow.

This is the "argument from utility" and it completely contradicts your arguing that God is real. See here for a wonderful response.

If it's tl;dr for you: That argument makes it completely irrelevant whether or not God is real, since a belief in him helps people. It serves nothing to support the statement "God is real".

I didn't exclude the question of God's existence once. I said "historically and practically", twocows addressed "historically", and I mentioned that he didn't address "practically".

One little link, which admittedly isn't my favorite, though it's written by Muslims about the Bible, which I feel is a good counter to yours written by Christians about the Quran.

I'll give you this- A couple of these puzzle me. I have a feeling that they're going to stick in my mind until I reach a conclusion about them.

And as a side note, your link had not one argument that could be turned against the Bible. Claimed inerrancy, being passed down orally before being written down, being modified by the person who put it together, grammatical flaws in the original manuscripts, fulfilled prophecy, scientific insights, historical inaccuracies. The Bible has the exact same problems.

We have our history covered for the time being, but a few of these confuse me as to what you mean.

As to its credibility, I can respond to this using a quote from yourself:

]You have yet to effectively communicate that point.

Ain't you a charmer.

 

[HarrisonH]

I understand your point. I just don't believe the assertions.

Why do you believe the assertions that lightning is from a static buildup in the clouds then?

By what authority do you presume to give my opinion for me?

Having dealt with these sorts of arguments before, I'm pretty much able to guess the responses.

I certainly don't know all of the ins and outs of creating a planet suitable for life, but God, being omnipotent and extratemporal could have produced Earth however He pleased. If He required that it be aged or given the appearance of age He could have made it so, it's not hard to understand. For today, I lean towards the created Earth having some kind of physical oldness to it, rather than Young Earth Creation. Not that the how and why of the Creation is a matter of doctrine anyhow.

In other words, "God works in mysterious ways". Also could be read as "I don't know".

I didn't exclude the question of God's existence once. I said "historically and practically", twocows addressed "historically", and I mentioned that he didn't address "practically".

The argument from utility completely excludes the question of his existence, as it's basically saying "Belief in it is good, so it doesn't matter if it's true or not".

I'll give you this- A couple of these puzzle me. I have a feeling that they're going to stick in my mind until I reach a conclusion about them.

:)

We have our history covered for the time being, but a few of these confuse me as to what you mean.

History covered? Not quite. There's more too. Somewhat related, the Gospels don't even agree with each other on some points.

Explain the ones that confuse you, and I'll go into detail.

Also, don't skip over Phantom and Myles, they're worthy of responses as well.

 

[Phantom1]

Somewhat related, the Gospels don't even agree with each other on some points.

Hell we can't even figure out who wrote them. Something interesting to further clarify your point here.

Of the four Gospels in the New Testament; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Three of them, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are called the synoptic gospels. This is because they agree moderately well on the life and teachings of Jesus, although each is a little different from the other two.

The Gospel of John is a different matter. Some scholars believe that John was originally written in a Gnostic community and was subsequently edited to remove some of the more clearly Gnostic material, although the gospel still has similarities with the Gnostic ways.

John differs from the synoptic Gospels because it is not just listing events in the life of Jesus. John is more thematic in nature and less chronological, and provides more theological discourse on the person and work of Christ.

Also, don't skip over Phantom and Myles, they're worthy of responses as well.

I was remembered! :D

 

[dinosaurodon]

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

And God said, Let US make man in OUR image

Alright, I thought this was kind of weird because if there is one god wouldn't what he say be singular? This IMO means that A-there is more than one god or B- god didn't create us, aliens did.

yup, i believe that aliens genetically altered our ancestors DNA and made us human(over millions of years of course)

this might have been a typo but of all places the bible?

 

[Åzurε]

Why do you believe the assertions that lightning is from a static buildup in the clouds then?

Scientific evidence and reproducible conditions, however I don't believe that people are perfect at pinning down the rules of reality and as such am willing to believe anything that proves itself more plausible than what I now know. And I've found faith in Christ to be quite reasonable, even if reason is only part of the whole.

In other words, "God works in mysterious ways". Also could be read as "I don't know".

If you wish to read it that way it's not a major stretch, although it does dumb down the original comment considerably. How about "I know it happened without knowing the details of how"? Or, "I don't know, but to be frank it's not going to cause the whole system of thought to come crashing down". I'll admit they don't roll off the tongue.

The argument from utility completely excludes the question of his existence, as it's basically saying "Belief in it is good, so it doesn't matter if it's true or not".

I never basically said that. The nearest I can tell, you saw similarities between my words and the argument, and jumped to accuse me of using it. Not once did I claim that the faith should go unchallenged because of it's usefulness.

History covered? Not quite. There's more too. Somewhat related, the Gospels don't even agree with each other on some points.

Explain the ones that confuse you, and I'll go into detail.

I'm sure you will. :P In particular, oral tradition, grammatical flaws and alteration by the compiler. Your article isn't loading for me at the moment, some issue with server response.

Also, don't skip over Phantom and Myles, they're worthy of responses as well.

I prefer to speak to one person at a time. Should this burn out or tone down I'll consider responding to them, but I'm only one voice on the internet.

 

[Phantom1]

And God said, Let US make man in OUR image

Alright, I thought this was kind of weird because if there is one god wouldn't what he say be singular? This IMO means that A-there is more than one god or B- god didn't create us, aliens did.

yup, i believe that aliens genetically altered our ancestors DNA and made us human(over millions of years of course)

this might have been a typo but of all places the bible?

Nope not a typo. Shows how interesting the Bible can be.

 

[HarrisonH]

Scientific evidence and reproducible conditions, however I don't believe that people are perfect at pinning down the rules of reality and as such am willing to believe anything that proves itself more plausible than what I now know. And I've found faith in Christ to be quite reasonable, even if reason is only part of the whole.

You mean the things that are used to support every scientific claim, including evolution?

If you wish to read it that way it's not a major stretch, although it does dumb down the original comment considerably. How about "I know it happened without knowing the details of how"? Or, "I don't know, but to be frank it's not going to cause the whole system of thought to come crashing down". I'll admit they don't roll off the tongue.

You know it happened, but don't know how it happened? How do you know it happened, when there's absolutely no reason or evidence to support that viewpoint? A better way for that to have been phrased is that you believe it happened, in spite of all the faulty and silly arguments that support it, and the evidence that contradicts it.

I never basically said that. The nearest I can tell, you saw similarities between my words and the argument, and jumped to accuse me of using it. Not once did I claim that the faith should go unchallenged because of it's usefulness.

You're arguing that a belief in god is practical, which is the same as useful. Which makes whether or not that god exists completely irrelevant.

I'm sure you will. :P In particular, oral tradition, grammatical flaws and alteration by the compiler. Your article isn't loading for me at the moment, some issue with server response.

Sure!
Oral tradition Wikipedia, but Wikipedia always cites its sources
Grammatical flaws and alteration by the compiler (This is a bit of a read, and covers a lot more than just that).

It also mentions the many books excluded from the bible. There's also a list linking to the texts of the excluded books, which you can find here.

 

[(=Nemesis=)]

Macro-evolution is reproducible..?

 

[HarrisonH]

Macro-evolution is reproducible..?

"Macroevolution", as you're using it, isn't a scientific term :P But speciation is reproducible, in a sense, and has been observed multiple times.

 

[(=Nemesis=)]

"Macroevolution", as you're using it, isn't a scientific term :P But speciation is reproducible, in a sense, and has been observed multiple times.

That's all right, I'm sure none of the scientists here mind as long as I explain the difference.

"Speciation" is where one species is split into two locations, and over time they develop in different ways so that they no longer recognise each other well enough to breed. This has been observed and repeated, done to death.

"Macro-evolution" is where a species adapts to an environment so extremely that it develops a new complex system where the intermediate stages of development seem to rely on continued commitment to an eventual advantage in spite of the fact that current status of the new system is minimally helpful or, at worst, a direct liability. Although there are some moderately plausible explanations for how this can occur, it cannot be actually demonstrated at all, unless you've a few hundred thousand years to spare.

While we're at it, ":P" isn't a scientific term either, matey.

 

[HarrisonH]

That's all right, I'm sure none of the scientists here mind as long as I explain the difference.

"Speciation" is where one species is split into two locations, and over time they develop in different ways so that they no longer recognise each other well enough to breed. This has been observed and repeated, done to death.

"Macro-evolution" is where a species adapts to an environment so extremely that it develops a new complex system where the intermediate stages of development seem to rely on continued commitment to an eventual advantage in spite of the fact that current status of the new system is minimally helpful or, at worst, a direct liability. Although there are some moderately plausible explanations for how this can occur, it cannot be actually demonstrated at all, unless you've a few hundred thousand years to spare.

While we're at it, ":P" isn't a scientific term either, matey.

I'm impressed :D Someone actually knows the proper definition for macroevolution. I had assumed that you were using it in the context most commonly seen in the creation/evolution debates, which is as a replacement for speciation.

 

[Myles]

Actually scholars have ideas about the history of the bible too.

The various dialects and word usage used in the law books suggest multiple sources and revisionism. It's thought that Yahweh (the god of the bible) was part of polytheistic myths where different countries had different gods. Yahweh was the god of war and became Israel's god. And then they were revised when Deuteronomy (the last law book) came about to make it monotheistic.

Which explains the massive amount of holy wars in the law books, the fact that there are various phrases indicating multiple gods. Why Yahweh/Moses were so against worshipping of other gods and why Yahweh is consistently referred to as 'the LORD your God'.

Similar things to the Jesus story had been done again and again before Jesus and it's thought that it was reused by the authors of the Gospels. Virgin births, three day resurrections, saviours and similar phrases like "Horus the Child" come from the Egyptian myths about Horus.

There is some evidence to suggest that the genesis creation story (namely the first chapter), existed before the book Genesis did. And was part of a polytheistic religion. Hence the leftover of:

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Context

There is also evidence of lots of civilisations (China, etc.) being older than Noah's flood.