Just finished watching Bill Mahr's Religulous where he basically makes fun of religions.

Question: How do those that believe in God reconcile the Science v Religion, Inconsistencies of the Bible, How they believe their God is the true God in light of all other religions.

NotMary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question: How do those that believe in God
> reconcile the Science v Religion, Inconsistencies
> of the Bible, How they believe their God is the
> true God in light of all other religions.

Easy. They just twist up the text and pretend the the bible is a science book too. There are some christians that have given up on the Genesis story and are now working evolution into Gods great plan.

Creationists, on the other hand, still hold fast to the notion that the Earth was formed in 6 days and is only 6,000 years old. These are the dangerous ones who are trying to change the science text books.

Then of course, you have the complete and total insanitics, the muslims. These are by far the most dangerous because Islam is also a political party that believes they're like the Highlanders. "There can be only one!" What also makes them the most dangerous is the fact they are actually de-evolving in front of our own eyes. The DNA strains that should contain creativity, critical thinking skills, free will, music and science have all mutated back to a stone age level or have disappeared completely, leaving them basically an empty shell.
Couple all this with an uncompromising and violent view of criticism of even the smallest degree (cartoons, movies, books) and you have insanity defined.

All we, as normal non-religious people, can do is hope they never fulfill their idiotic prophecies and blow us all the Kingdom Cum.

I thought that was an awesome and well done flick.

It is possible to believe in a god and not be Jewish, Christian, Muslin[sic], or any other spin-off. You don't even need to have read the bible or set foot inside a church/temple/... etc.
God and evolution don't necessarily contradict, nor do god and science.

Believing in god (or God) isn't as dangerous as people who can't (or don't) read between the lines and/or think for themselves. If they don't get hooked by their local house of worship, there will be something else to come along and hook them... Politics maybe?

But what do I know?

Oh yeah, people who contradict themselves are scary too.

Mofo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought that was an awesome and well done flick.

i remember it getting shitty reviews from both sides of the issue with exception to the hardcore atheists who practically came in their pants before it even came out.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

So why does religion bother atheists so much? If you don't believe then don't believe but how about a little tolerance for those that do? It's ironic that those who bray the loudest about tolerance and diversity are quite often the most intolerant and bigoted.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why does religion bother atheists so much? If
> you don't believe then don't believe but how about
> a little tolerance for those that do? It's ironic
> that those who bray the loudest about tolerance
> and diversity are quite often the most intolerant
> and bigoted.

The difference is that atheists are not serving a God they they claim loves everyone equally, preaches tolerance, and demands "love thy neighbor" of his followers. There's nothing in the atheist rulebook about having to be tolerant. It just so happens that they generally are tolerant to all but one group (namely intolerant, bigoted evangelicals who vocally condemn to hell everyone who isn't part of their F'd up cult). Nobody's perfect but in a pissing contest, evangelicals are WAY less tolerant than pretty much any other major "group" (with perhaps the exception of Muslims, who can be pretty tough too).

Being an atheist doesnt stop one from following the golden rule. In fact it is the golden rule really should be renamed..the universal rule.

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why does religion bother atheists so much? If
> you don't believe then don't believe but how about
> a little tolerance for those that do? It's ironic
> that those who bray the loudest about tolerance
> and diversity are quite often the most intolerant
> and bigoted.


Religion doesn't bother me - I find it fascinating and worth studying. Religious people on the other hand sometimes do. They attempt to legislate their beliefs and to force them upon other people.

Remember that prayer was at one point mandatory? That was because of religious folks.

What you are probably experiencing is the backlash of the oppressed people that your religion (or rather the Christian religion, if you are not Christian) has been oppressing for centuries.

A few nasty names isn't going to hurt you, like...oh I don't know...the inquisition. I'm not saying it's correct, mind you, but you need to develop thicker skin. The hostility that the extreme atheists have will blow over once church and state are truly separated.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being an atheist doesnt stop one from following
> the golden rule. In fact it is the golden rule
> really should be renamed..the universal rule.


Technically the golden rule was the 'silver rule' when Confucius first came up with it.

Watch this piece from Nightline, and you'll see why people should be bothered by religion. It's a church group taking a tour of a natural history museum. The purpose of the tour is to teach young kids why evolution is a lie. It is horrifying in its ignorance- almost unbelievable people like this actually exist in America.

It's a bit long at 9 minutes, but it's sort of like watching a train wreck...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why does religion bother atheists so much? If
> you don't believe then don't believe but how about
> a little tolerance for those that do? It's ironic
> that those who bray the loudest about tolerance
> and diversity are quite often the most intolerant
> and bigoted.


You don't have to be atheist to be bothered by religions. Religious zealots are constantly shoving their beliefs down everyone's throats. Some are more obnoxious than others, some are more dangerous than others, but they all do it. And they all seem to have that holier-than-thou attitude, like they're somehow better than everyone else.

An example of a simple, yet annoying thing I've seen is the whole 'remember the reason for the season' crap that christians like to spout, and how they're offended if you say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". If you really want to get technical, the 'reason for the season' has absolutely nothing to do with christ or the birth of anyone. It was the Solstice celebration of the Pagans and Christianity modified their history to overtake the holiday as a Christian one.

To Cotton Mather:


-------------------------------------------------------
> So why does science bother the religious so much? If
> you don't believe then don't believe but how about
> a little tolerance for those that do? It's ironic
> that those who bray the loudest about the miracles of God are quite often the > most ignorant about the machinery that powers His Universe?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Religion doesn't bother me - I find it fascinating
> and worth studying. Religious people on the other
> hand sometimes do. They attempt to legislate
> their beliefs and to force them upon other
> people.
>
> Remember that prayer was at one point mandatory?
> That was because of religious folks.
>
> What you are probably experiencing is the backlash
> of the oppressed people that your religion (or
> rather the Christian religion, if you are not
> Christian) has been oppressing for centuries.
>
> A few nasty names isn't going to hurt you,
> like...oh I don't know...the inquisition. I'm not
> saying it's correct, mind you, but you need to
> develop thicker skin. The hostility that the
> extreme atheists have will blow over once church
> and state are truly separated.


Well stated.

Does anyone here have a problem with the Gov't taxing Churches? Not asking whether it will work or not but do you, personally, have a problem with that? If so, would like to understand why.

The invective hurled by the small-minded, uninformed bigots on this site seems to be mainly directed at Christians. Islam, unlike Christianity, has never had a Great Awakening, and is utterly mired in fundamentalist dogma, yet all the hatred is directed at Christianity.

So why does science bother the religious so much? If
> you don't believe then don't believe but how about
> a little tolerance for those that do? It's ironic
> that those who bray the loudest about the miracles of God are quite often the > most ignorant about the machinery that powers His Universe?

This premise is not only flawed but unoriginal. But then what else would one expect from the small-minded illiterate who posted it.

Does anyone here have a problem with the Gov't taxing Churches? Not asking whether it will work or not but do you, personally, have a problem with that? If so, would like to understand why.

Churches provide a lot of social services and charity and should not be taxed.

namely intolerant, bigoted evangelicals who vocally condemn to hell everyone who isn't part of their F'd up cult

They hardly comprise up all of Christianity!

All bow down before the awesome power of the spaghetti MONSTER!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't really have a dog in this fight but Bill Maher is a smug, unfunny asshole. He's a "comedian" for people without a sense of humor.

Christian Charity – What is it?
Christian charity tends to have a variety of different meanings. Some people believe it is simply showing love to the poor, while others feel that Christians are called to show the love of Christ through their daily lives. Showing the love of God through charitable acts is something all Christians can do.
Many dictionaries define charity as “Christian love.” This form of Christian love is also described as agape love -- "the love of Christians for other persons, corresponding to the love of God for humankind."

HHH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone here have a problem with the Gov't
> taxing Churches? Not asking whether it will work
> or not but do you, personally, have a problem with
> that? If so, would like to understand why.
>
> Churches provide a lot of social services and
> charity and should not be taxed.

Obviously, only the profits would be taxed.

MOST churches shouldn't be taxed; just the ones who generate revenue using the public airwaves (TV, radio, etc). That should solve a whole host of problems.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

It appears that most of you "Atheists" have a problem with organized religion, specifically Christianity.

Meeper, that problem you linked to isn't caused by a belief in a god... It's caused by powerful speakers exploiting the faith of the simple minded, turning them into blind followers. I'm sure you were told some silly shit as a kid, do you still believe it?

Again, I don't know why most of you believe that god and science are contradictory terms. It's an infinitely complex world/universe we live in and science is a great tool to help get an understanding of it... But science isn't everything, science would turn into magic tricks if no one had any faith in it.

Oh and TAX THE HELL out of churches, they're a business just like McDonalds. I've seen some of those contemporary super churches bigger than malls with "priests" that drive benzos and BMWs. What a crock of shit!

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The invective hurled by the small-minded,
> uninformed bigots on this site seems to be mainly
> directed at Christians. Islam, unlike
> Christianity, has never had a Great Awakening, and
> is utterly mired in fundamentalist dogma, yet all
> the hatred is directed at Christianity.

That's quite some invective you are hurling there.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, I don't know why most of you believe that
> god and science are contradictory terms.

Fundamentalist Christians tell us they are. If you have issue with that, then why don't you and your Christian brethren make your voices louder then theirs?

> It's an
> infinitely complex world/universe we live in and
> science is a great tool to help get an
> understanding of it... But science isn't
> everything, science would turn into magic tricks
> if no one had any faith in it.

How's that again? Do you mean technology?

.
Attachments:

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fundamentalist Christians tell us they are. If
> you have issue with that, then why don't you and
> your Christian brethren make your voices louder
> then theirs?

Professor,
Fundamentalist Christians say a lot of things, that doesn't mean you have to subscribe to their beliefs. Oh and I don't consider myself a fundamentalist christian. I wouldn't even classify myself as christian. The whole point of my posts is that the existence of god is possible and you don't have to be "religious" to believe that.

> How's that again? Do you mean technology?

I beg your pardon, Professor, but could you clarify your question?

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
>>> that problem you linked to isn't caused by a belief in a god... It's caused by powerful speakers exploiting the faith of the simple minded,


Unfortunately, alot of religion seems more about exploiting the weak and preying on people's fears than it is about a simple belief in god. Shit, even one of our presidential candidates believes the stuff from that video should be taught in public schools (Huckabee). Taking religion seriously is dangerous.


>>>> I'm sure you were told some silly shit as a kid, do you still believe it?

I actually do, lol

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harry Tuttle Wrote:

>
>
> >>>> I'm sure you were told some silly shit as a
> kid, do you still believe it?
>
> I actually do, lol

I was told YOU are some SILLY SHIT.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fundamentalist Christians tell us they are. If
> > you have issue with that, then why don't you
> and
> > your Christian brethren make your voices louder
> > then theirs?
>
> Professor,
> Fundamentalist Christians say a lot of things,
> that doesn't mean you have to subscribe to their
> beliefs. Oh and I don't consider myself a
> fundamentalist christian. I wouldn't even classify
> myself as christian. The whole point of my posts
> is that the existence of god is possible and you
> don't have to be "religious" to believe that.

Yes, I realize that - my point was that mainstream *science accepting* Christians aren't doing enough to "over shout" the fundamentalists.

> > How's that again? Do you mean technology?
>
> I beg your pardon, Professor, but could you
> clarify your question?


That's funny, since I was asking for you to clarify your question. ;-)

You said: "everything, science would turn into magic tricks if no one had any faith in it.

I asked if you meant technology, since science is a reference to methodology.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I realize that - my point was that mainstream
> *science accepting* Christians aren't doing enough
> to "over shout" the fundamentalists.

I have to agree that not many Christians that I've met are flexible enough to interpret the bible from a metaphorical standpoint. If that practice were accepted by the church, it would be much harder to control people with fear.
It sounds like we are saying the same thing in different words, Professor, but I don't see why it matters what any Christians think, even the *science accepting* ones.
My question is: Why do people think that science and god contradict each other?
Your answer was: Because most Christians say so?
That sounds like you are giving them too much credit!

> I asked if you meant technology, since science is
> a reference to methodology.

Come on! You know what I meant, you're just splitting hairs now. Maybe I meant to say "the methodology of magic tricks" instead of "magic tricks"? Basically, science would solely be used for gags, or neat little tricks, if no one had any faith in it.

> That's funny, since I was asking for you to
> clarify your question. ;-)

That IS funny! Because the topic you were "asking (me) to clarify" wasn't really much of a question... ;-)

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfortunately, alot of religion seems more about
> exploiting the weak and preying on people's fears
> than it is about a simple belief in god.

I agree with you Meeper, and that is what bothers me. Even more unfortunately, there is an association with believing in god and being a mindless follower of an organized religion, that bothers me even more.

> Shit, even one of our presidential candidates believes
> the stuff from that video should be taught in
> public schools (Huckabee). Taking religion
> seriously is dangerous.

What an idiot he is! Imagine what this country would be like if he actually won! I'm glad America could see him for the disingenuous hypocrite that he is. But the example you used could easily be used to make the point that taking politics seriously is dangerous.

> I actually do, lol

Really!? I'd love to hear an example.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
>>>> > I actually do, lol
>
> Really!? I'd love to hear an example.


I still totally believe that pro wrestling is real.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2009 05:43PM by TheMeeper.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, I realize that - my point was that
> mainstream
> > *science accepting* Christians aren't doing
> enough
> > to "over shout" the fundamentalists.
>
> I have to agree that not many Christians that I've
> met are flexible enough to interpret the bible
> from a metaphorical standpoint. If that practice
> were accepted by the church, it would be much
> harder to control people with fear.
> It sounds like we are saying the same thing in
> different words, Professor, but I don't see why it
> matters what any Christians think, even the
> *science accepting* ones.
> My question is: Why do people think that science
> and god contradict each other?
> Your answer was: Because most Christians say so?
> That sounds like you are giving them too much
> credit!

I'm not giving them too much credit - I'm not a Christian. I don't think that god and science necessarily contradict each other. This was what I was implying when I said that *Christians* say this.


> > I asked if you meant technology, since science
> is
> > a reference to methodology.
>
> Come on! You know what I meant, you're just
> splitting hairs now. Maybe I meant to say "the
> methodology of magic tricks" instead of "magic
> tricks"? Basically, science would solely be used
> for gags, or neat little tricks, if no one had any
> faith in it.

No, I don't know what you mean. I still don't - I don't see how a methodology could be seen as 'magic tricks'. I can see technology being viewed this way; akin to Arthur C Clark who said that any advanced technology is bound to look like magic to primitive people (basically).

If you are referring to science as methodology, i don't think it follows. Science is a methodology - a way to determine reality abductively. This is epistemology here - your suggestion that we just have faith in it, flies in the face of what science is, since it relies on empiricism (primarily), which is an evidence based enterprise.

> > That's funny, since I was asking for you to
> > clarify your question. ;-)
>
> That IS funny! Because the topic you were "asking
> (me) to clarify" wasn't really much of a
> question... ;-)

As you can see, I disagree.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still totally believe that pro wrestling is
> real.

I still believe that if it's yellow, let it mellow.

edit: I just wanted to bump to get on top of all the necromancing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2009 10:21PM by Harry Tuttle.

Of course God isn't real and it's no biggie. There are many on youtube who get on the camera to rant about this, and there are many Atheist communities online, maybe because it's hard to talk about in real life. Maybe society hasn't quite dispelled the idea. There just is no God. There's no use half assing it or being sensitive about it. I realize that many people think that they believe in God. But they really don't because if they did they would be a little more dedicated to it than they really are, and far less worried about convincing everyone to join their club. Humanity is still in adolescence, and we still have residual fears of boogie men in the closet and creatures under the bed. It's "quite possible" that God exists in the same way that it is possible that something is lurking around in the dark. But every time you turn on your light nothing is there. So maybe it's time for everyone to get on with living their lives instead of worrying about the paranormal. There is no need for a God in cosmology because there are other theories out there that are based in fact. Everything in religious texts are completely made up. There is no need for a God in personal life because we can all go on doing exactly what we are doing without even worrying about it or acting differently at all. Most people barely think of such things in everyday life. In 100 years religion will be seen as an exotic custom practiced only in the wild pockets of the world.

WFB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> This premise is not only flawed but unoriginal.
> But then what else would one expect from the
> small-minded illiterate who posted it.


The religious are terrified of science because scientific discovery keeps eroding their belief system. The Catholic Church used to believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe. When Galileo dared to suggest that that wasn't the case, the Church went after him with a vengeance. The religious zealots would like nothing better than to discredit Evolution because it seriously undermines their misguided belief that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, but they can't. There is no science to back-up ID. Just a flawed belief that raising doubt about Evolution will somehow discredit the truth.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
>> > > The religious are terrified of science because> scientific discovery keeps eroding their belief system.


Organized religion is a business like any other. There's alot of money and power to be lost if people start canceling their subscriptions and stop buying your products. It's a complete racket.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> >> > > The religious are terrified of science
> because> scientific discovery keeps eroding their
> belief system.
>
>
> Organized religion is a business like any other.
> There's alot of money and power to be lost if
> people start canceling their subscriptions and
> stop buying your products. It's a complete
> racket.


Now, Meeper! You are making it sound like money is more important to these folks than "saving souls."

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/36807/

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not giving them too much credit - I'm not a
> Christian. I don't think that god and science
> necessarily contradict each other. This was what
> I was implying when I said that *Christians* say
> this.
So we are saying the same thing then? Christians do say this, but they are not alone. For example, many atheists use evolution and scientific method as proof that there is no god. Peep around here and see for yourself...http://www.atheists.org/
>
> No, I don't know what you mean. I still don't - I
> don't see how a methodology could be seen as
> 'magic tricks'. I can see technology being viewed
> this way; akin to Arthur C Clark who said that any
> advanced technology is bound to look like magic to
> primitive people (basically).
>
> your suggestion that we just
> have faith in it, flies in the face of what
> science is, since it relies on empiricism
> (primarily), which is an evidence based
> enterprise.

I disagree, the mere fact that so many people devote so much of their lives for it shows a faith in what they're doing. They have faith that what they're doing will improve their lives and the lives of others (instead of making it worse)... Even when there is no way to empirically prove it. I'm just saying that objectivity and science aren't everything. Faith is, at least, equally important as you need a way to believe you should keep on keeping on even when all the evidence points to the contrary. Even Atheists have faith in their beliefs even though there is no way to prove scientifically that they are correct.

> As you can see, I disagree.
If you know I can see that, why point it out again?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2009 06:31PM by Harry Tuttle.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm not giving them too much credit - I'm not a
> > Christian. I don't think that god and science
> > necessarily contradict each other. This was
> what
> > I was implying when I said that *Christians*
> say
> > this.
> So we are saying the same thing then? Christians
> do say this, but they are not alone. For example,
> many atheists use evolution and scientific method
> as proof that there is no god. Peep around here
> and see for yourself...http://www.atheists.org/

I'd say we are saying close to the same thing. I don't think that evolution deductively shows that god doesn't exist. I don't think science does either. I do feel that evolution/science *does* provide solid evidence for saying that *SOME* versions of Christianity are untrue.

As for that website - I am familiar with it. Atheists are not hiveminds though (much as Christians as a whole aren't).

> >
> > No, I don't know what you mean. I still don't -
> I
> > don't see how a methodology could be seen as
> > 'magic tricks'. I can see technology being
> viewed
> > this way; akin to Arthur C Clark who said that
> any
> > advanced technology is bound to look like magic
> to
> > primitive people (basically).
> >
> > your suggestion that we just
> > have faith in it, flies in the face of what
> > science is, since it relies on empiricism
> > (primarily), which is an evidence based
> > enterprise.
>
> I disagree, the mere fact that so many people
> devote so much of their lives for it shows a faith
> in what they're doing.

No, it shows an interest in what they are doing, not a faith. Faith, as far as I'm concerned, is defined in one of two ways:

1. Belief without evidence.
2. Trust.

Neither of these definitions support your usage of the term - so I suspect you are using the term more loosely.

> They have faith that what
> they're doing will improve their lives and the
> lives of others (instead of making it worse)...

I don't know that this is true - often times you will see research without any appreciable effect toward the increase in a person's life. For instance, it's hard to determine how human life will benefit by discovering a new type of beetle.

Some scientists might do what they are doing to improve their lives, but I would argue that they do this based on the probability that the outcome will be positive - not that they just have faith that it will.

For instance, scientists who work in medicine have seen how medicine can improve the human condition. In fact, through repeated experiment with animals that are genetically similar to us, these scientists have formed a base on which they can have reasonable expectations that the medicine they are working on will perform the same function in human beings.

This is not faith - it is not belief without evidence (after all, they have previous trials to rely on). It is also not 'trust' as their is no entity in which to embark on a conditional agreement with.

> Even when there is no way to empirically prove it.
> I'm just saying that objectivity and science
> aren't everything.

I agree with your conclusion (that science isn't everything) although as I have shown, I have problems with your premises.

> Faith is, at least, equally
> important as you need a way to believe you should
> keep on keeping on even when all the evidence
> points to the contrary. Even Atheists have faith
> in their beliefs even though there is no way to
> prove scientifically that they are correct.

Atheists as individuals probably do have faith in a number of things. I would wager they are more likely to be more rationally based - but this is primarily anecdotal.

However atheism as a position is not a faith based enterprise. Rationally it cannot be since it is a lack of belief.

> > As you can see, I disagree.
> If you know I can see that, why point it out
> again?

Because I suspect that you don't know what I was initially referring to.

I believe in God.

I see his handy work every time I step out in my garden. As I tend my flowers and vegetable patch, I see his invisible hand at work. Every time I walk in the woods, I see hints of God's divine presence. Consider the humble field mushroom, one of the most simplistic organisms on this planet. Not only do I consider it proof of God's existence, but I think it shows that God has an inordinate fondness for mankind. It grows on decaying plant material and provides us with something incredibly tasty to eat.

I do not believe in organized religion.

More human beings have been killed in the name of religion then for any other reason. I don't care if you call yourself a christian, jew or muslim, everyone is guilty. Bill Mahr had that one right.

He doesn't believe in God, though. I think that's because he isn't a gardener.

VAviking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe in God.
>
> I see his handy work every time I step out in my
> garden. As I tend my flowers and vegetable patch,
> I see his invisible hand at work. Every time I
> walk in the woods, I see hints of God's divine
> presence. Consider the humble field mushroom, one
> of the most simplistic organisms on this planet.
> Not only do I consider it proof of God's
> existence, but I think it shows that God has an
> inordinate fondness for mankind. It grows on
> decaying plant material and provides us with
> something incredibly tasty to eat.
>
> I do not believe in organized religion.
>
> More human beings have been killed in the name of
> religion then for any other reason. I don't care
> if you call yourself a christian, jew or muslim,
> everyone is guilty. Bill Mahr had that one
> right.
>
> He doesn't believe in God, though. I think that's
> because he isn't a gardener.


Stuff can be beautiful and cool and awesome without God sticking his nose in it. The harmonious laws of physics are responsible for what we see around us, but even more fascinating is that underneath the apparent order of the universe, inside the atoms, protons and quarks and weird quantum particles are bouncing around not making any sense at all. Yet both systems exist at the same time. The end result is somehow a beautiful flower or a mushroom. How mysterious. Seems rather trite to explain it away by saying that some guy sitting around in the clouds pulled it out of his ass in a week, or that some weird abstract "prime mover" intelligent wad of energy is responsible.

I loved it. It showed how retarded you creationist loons are.


A guy lived in a fish, right?

A man gathered every animal on earth...Oh,wait..Even with modern science, we discover thousands of new species a year!!!

Up your ass, religious fucks...Stop holding everyone back...Refrain from voting..It's for the learned only.


Fuck you.

You're turning into a real bastard, Professor...
Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd say we are saying close to the same thing. I
> don't think that evolution deductively shows that
> god doesn't exist. I don't think science does
> either.
Which was my original statement. Good... I'm glad we can move on.

> Atheists are not hiveminds though (much as
> Christians as a whole aren't).
Maybe it's because it's early, but what you're saying in bold doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

> No, it shows an interest in what they are doing,
> not a faith. Faith, as far as I'm concerned, is
> defined in one of two ways:
>
> 1. Belief without evidence.
Would you consider changing this definition to "Belief without proof"? As far as I'm concerned evidence is a dime a dozen... There can be plenty of evidence without any proof resulting from it. (You can find evidence of urine in a toilet, but that's not proof that the person who put it there didn't hit the flushing lever... It's not even proof that someone actually urinated in the toilet as they could have peed in a bottle then emptied said bottle in the toilet AND tried to flush)

When Fleming discovered Penicillin, the evidence from the resulting experiments suggested that it could not last long enough inside the human body to kill pathogenic bacteria... so he stopped studying it after 1931!


> 2. Trust.
Trust requires faith, but I don't think it stands as a definition...

> I don't know that this is true - often times you
> will see research without any appreciable effect
> toward the increase in a person's life. For
> instance, it's hard to determine how human life
> will benefit by discovering a new type of beetle.
>
> Some scientists might do what they are doing to
> improve their lives, but I would argue that they
> do this based on the probability that the outcome
> will be positive - not that they just have faith
> that it will.
"Positive outcome" is not very objective nor very scientific... unless you're talking about magnets!?

> For instance, scientists who work in medicine have
> seen how medicine can improve the human condition.
> In fact, through repeated experiment with animals
> that are genetically similar to us, these
> scientists have formed a base on which they can
> have reasonable expectations that the medicine
> they are working on will perform the same function
> in human beings.
Correct but, like you said with the beetle, there is no way to tell how the discovery, or implementation, of a new medicine will affect the world. The medicine may work on humans just as it did pigs and, according to your definition, that would not be an example of faith (because of the previous trials)... However, let's say this new medicine, for example, cured genital herpes... There would be no evidence to support the belief that this new, herpes free world, would actually be any better off than the one with herpes, and definitely no way to objectively prove this, but scientists have faith that our society would benefit from a cure from gen. herp. or they wouldn't currently be working on a cure.

> However atheism as a position is not a faith based
> enterprise. Rationally it cannot be since it is a
> lack of belief.
Couldn't the lack of a belief in god also be called the belief in no god?

[offtopic]
> > > As you can see, I disagree.
> > If you know I can see that, why point it out
> > again?
> Because I suspect that you don't know what I was
> initially referring to.
Then why not tell me what you were initially referring to instead of repeating that you disagree?

> I agree with your conclusion (that science isn't
> everything) although as I have shown, I have
> problems with your premises.
You're just like my math teachers who would always take points off of my test for not showing my work, even though I got the right answer!
[/offtopic]

There is currently no evidence inside this thread that this thread will ever stop getting new posts, but I have faith that it will...

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're turning into a real bastard, Professor...

And why would that be?

> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'd say we are saying close to the same thing.
> I
> > don't think that evolution deductively shows
> that
> > god doesn't exist. I don't think science does
> > either.
> Which was my original statement. Good... I'm glad
> we can move on.

You are the one who wanted to argue with me about it - All I had meant to point out is that Christians need to do a better job of reigning in their fundamentalist brethren.

> > Atheists are not hiveminds though (much as
> > Christians as a whole aren't).
> Maybe it's because it's early, but what you're
> saying in bold doesn't make a whole lot of sense
> to me.

I'm saying that, generally, Christians are not all of one mind. They have a variety of stances. Of course they do have some core similarities.

> > No, it shows an interest in what they are
> doing,
> > not a faith. Faith, as far as I'm concerned,
> is
> > defined in one of two ways:
> >
> > 1. Belief without evidence.
> Would you consider changing this definition to
> "Belief without proof"? As far as I'm concerned
> evidence is a dime a dozen... There can be plenty
> of evidence without any proof resulting from it.
> (You can find evidence of urine in a toilet, but
> that's not proof that the person who put it there
> didn't hit the flushing lever... It's not even
> proof that someone actually urinated in the toilet
> as they could have peed in a bottle then emptied
> said bottle in the toilet AND tried to flush)


No, I actually wouldn't. The standard of 'proof' is quite a high standard. Maths work off of proofs as do logical deductions, however science often does not.

Take forensics, for instance, the conclusions they come to are based off of abductive reasoning. That is coming to a conclusion based on the best evidence. If you look at the evidence from the OJ trial, you can't conclusively prove that OJ did it. What you can do is provide sufficient evidence to come to a reasonable level of certainty that OJ did it.

A proof would be as solid as 1+1=2

Don't get me wrong - I understand what you are saying about evidence. I would say that you are referring to the common definition of proof, while I am not.

> When Fleming discovered Penicillin, the evidence
> from the resulting experiments suggested that it
> could not last long enough inside the human body
> to kill pathogenic bacteria... so he stopped
> studying it after 1931!

Perhaps so, however it did do it's job well enough to warrant an investigation into it's potential.

The problem with proof is an epistemic one. How do you go about proving the empirical world?

> > 2. Trust.
> Trust requires faith, but I don't think it stands
> as a definition...

Well, maybe, however I have talked to many Christians who (anecdotal, sure) who refer to it that way.

> > I don't know that this is true - often times
> you
> > will see research without any appreciable
> effect
> > toward the increase in a person's life. For
> > instance, it's hard to determine how human life
> > will benefit by discovering a new type of
> beetle.
> >
> > Some scientists might do what they are doing to
> > improve their lives, but I would argue that
> they
> > do this based on the probability that the
> outcome
> > will be positive - not that they just have
> faith
> > that it will.
> "Positive outcome" is not very objective nor very
> scientific... unless you're talking about
> magnets!?

Fair enough - I meant that the scientists would have an appreciable net gain in their own quality of life. Whether it be because they are pursuing an area of research that simply interests them or whether it is to cure cancer.

> > For instance, scientists who work in medicine
> have
> > seen how medicine can improve the human
> condition.
> > In fact, through repeated experiment with
> animals
> > that are genetically similar to us, these
> > scientists have formed a base on which they can
> > have reasonable expectations that the medicine
> > they are working on will perform the same
> function
> > in human beings.
> Correct but, like you said with the beetle, there
> is no way to tell how the discovery, or
> implementation, of a new medicine will affect the
> world.

Right - *THAT* research isn't done to affect the world (at least not in the same way medicine is). It is to expand the body of knowledge.

Science is often (not always) done for it's own sake, not because the practitioner is actively looking for something. The reason for this is because it's often very hard to predict what a specific area of research will lead to. For instance, Einstein set out to discover the secrets of electromagnetism, he didn't set out to discover a theory that would lead ultimately to the atomic bomb, television, and so on.

> The medicine may work on humans just as it
> did pigs and, according to your definition, that
> would not be an example of faith (because of the
> previous trials)... However, let's say this new
> medicine, for example, cured genital herpes...
> There would be no evidence to support the belief
> that this new, herpes free world, would actually
> be any better off than the one with herpes, and
> definitely no way to objectively prove this, but
> scientists have faith that our society would
> benefit from a cure from gen. herp. or they
> wouldn't currently be working on a cure.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that there would be no support of the idea that the world would be better off. Herpes are often painful - limiting the amount of human suffering *is* promoting a better world.

I do see what you are trying to argue and not all science sets out to make the world a better place.

Also, the uniformity of nature provides at the least basic evidence to suggest that chemicals in the past have improved our lives, so there's at least some evidence that chemicals could continue to improve our lives.

> > However atheism as a position is not a faith
> based
> > enterprise. Rationally it cannot be since it is
> a
> > lack of belief.
> Couldn't the lack of a belief in god also be
> called the belief in no god?

I think you are aiming at positive atheism - the position that we can be certain that no gods exist. Atheism encompasses that view point, but is not limited to it. Atheism is a position on *belief*, not knowledge.

One can (claim) know that no gods exist - and be a strong/positive/gnostic atheist.

One can say they don't know whether gods exist or not, but they don't believe in any gods - and be a weak/negative/agnostic atheist.

One can (claim) know that god exists - and be a gnostic theist.

One can say they don't know whether gods exist or not, but they believe in god - and be an agnostic/fideist theist.

> > > > As you can see, I disagree.
> > > If you know I can see that, why point it out
> > > again?
> > Because I suspect that you don't know what I
> was
> > initially referring to.
> Then why not tell me what you were initially
> referring to instead of repeating that you
> disagree?

I actually *did*.

> > I agree with your conclusion (that science
> isn't
> > everything) although as I have shown, I have
> > problems with your premises.
> You're just like my math teachers who would always
> take points off of my test for not showing my
> work, even though I got the right answer!

Math teachers suck, don't they? ;-)

> There is currently no evidence inside this thread
> that this thread will ever stop getting new posts,
> but I have faith that it will...

Well, here's another piece of evidence to the contrary... :-)

What happened? Did you assholes run out of room on the Mclean Bible Church thread?

Cotton Mather Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why does religion bother atheists so much?

I think it's this:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

And this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

that bother them

I believe in God, but I also believe in science and evolution. Belief in one does not preclude belief in the other.

Darwin believed in God. I first learned about him growing up on a farm as a small child. We bred geese, chickens and pigs. One day, my father told me that all the different breeds of chickens we had (there were eight) were all descended from one breed of chicken. I was shocked. That's when he talked about Darwin and how he came up with the idea of evolution by studying pigeon fanciers in London. All the different breeds of pigeons displayed at various shows were all descended from the humble rock pigeon. "There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different pigeon breeds," my father said with a chuckle. I saw proof of Darwin's Theory of Evolution every damn day I lived on the farm. I not only saw it, we helped it along when we selected certain seeds to plant or chickens to breed. Most farmers I know believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

They also believe in God. Hard not to growing up on a farm. With all our technology, science, hard work and skill, mother nature has a way of sneaking up on you and kicking you right in the ass. The weather, some new blight, or some weird stupid shit occurring at the Chicago Board of Trade can wipe out months of hard work. Most farmers I know believe in God.

I was fourteen when I lost my faith in religion, but not with God. The details aren't important, but that is when I realized I didn't need some hypocritical asshole explaining God's plan on earth. Yep, most of my family consider me a heathen because I don't go to church, I don't read the bible, I don't quote scripture and I don't buy their bullshit. But I still believe in God.

Personally, I like Issac Newton's idea of God as a cosmic clock maker.

the problem with this movie was how mahr approached the subject. He came at it the same way dawkins does. Instead of trying to change peoples minds, he lets them know how crazy they are, its hard to make a positive change when you attack religion in this way (even though it probably needs to be.)

Naru Hodo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What happened? Did you assholes run out of room on
> the Mclean Bible Church thread?


Haha

VAviking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe in God, but I also believe in science
> and evolution. Belief in one does not preclude
> belief in the other.
>
> Darwin believed in God. I first learned about him
> growing up on a farm as a small child. We bred
> geese, chickens and pigs. One day, my father told
> me that all the different breeds of chickens we
> had (there were eight) were all descended from one
> breed of chicken. I was shocked. That's when he
> talked about Darwin and how he came up with the
> idea of evolution by studying pigeon fanciers in
> London. All the different breeds of pigeons
> displayed at various shows were all descended from
> the humble rock pigeon. "There are hundreds,
> perhaps thousands, of different pigeon breeds," my
> father said with a chuckle. I saw proof of
> Darwin's Theory of Evolution every damn day I
> lived on the farm. I not only saw it, we helped
> it along when we selected certain seeds to plant
> or chickens to breed. Most farmers I know believe
> in Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
>
> They also believe in God. Hard not to growing up
> on a farm. With all our technology, science, hard
> work and skill, mother nature has a way of
> sneaking up on you and kicking you right in the
> ass. The weather, some new blight, or some weird
> stupid shit occurring at the Chicago Board of
> Trade can wipe out months of hard work. Most
> farmers I know believe in God.
>
> I was fourteen when I lost my faith in religion,
> but not with God. The details aren't important,
> but that is when I realized I didn't need some
> hypocritical asshole explaining God's plan on
> earth. Yep, most of my family consider me a
> heathen because I don't go to church, I don't read
> the bible, I don't quote scripture and I don't buy
> their bullshit. But I still believe in God.
>
> Personally, I like Issac Newton's idea of God as a
> cosmic clock maker.

Actually Darwin became an agnostic after his daughter died. Prior to that he was a Christian. His science didn't really destroy his faith.

Also, he came up with natural selection after reading Mathus' (sp?) book on economics I believe, and while studying finches on the Galapagos islands.

Darwin came up with the mathematics of evolution after reading Mathus's book (food supplies increase arithmetically while population densities increases geometrically), but the idea for natural selection came about while studying pigeon breeders and going to pigeon shows in London. The trip aboard HMS Beagle to the Galapagos was to confirm the theory.

Interesting, a colleague of his, Henry Wallace, was working on the same idea at the same time (Darwin published first). He was studying plant and animal life in the far east. He came up with the Wallace line. Simon Winchester talked about Darwin and Wallace (and the Wallace line) in his book "Krakatoa." It's a great book. He also wrote another excellent book about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake called "A crack in the Edge of the World."

Just for giggles - The agnostic prayer: "Oh God, if there is a God. Please save my soul, if I have a soul."

.
Attachments:

VAviking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Darwin came up with the mathematics of evolution
> after reading Mathus's book (food supplies
> increase arithmetically while population densities
> increases geometrically), but the idea for natural
> selection came about while studying pigeon
> breeders and going to pigeon shows in London. The
> trip aboard HMS Beagle to the Galapagos was to
> confirm the theory.

I could swear it was the other way around. I thought that Darwin got into breeding after he got back, having established himself by his collection of specimens. The beagle trip was basically a chance for him to find himself (in some respects).

> Interesting, a colleague of his, Henry Wallace,
> was working on the same idea at the same time
> (Darwin published first). He was studying plant
> and animal life in the far east. He came up with
> the Wallace line. Simon Winchester talked about
> Darwin and Wallace (and the Wallace line) in his
> book "Krakatoa." It's a great book. He also
> wrote another excellent book about the 1906 San
> Francisco earthquake called "A crack in the Edge
> of the World."

I could be wrong here, but I thought that while Darwin published his treatise first (on the origin), Darwin published a paper with Wallace after Wallace had sent him a letter outlining a basic theory of evolution. He realized that he couldn't just keep sitting on his theory.

> Just for giggles - The agnostic prayer: "Oh God,
> if there is a God. Please save my soul, if I have
> a soul."

I always liked the strong agnostic:

I don't know and neither do you...

.
Attachments:

First,
Thank you Naru for pointing out that thread. It is quite an interesting read... (and gives me deeper insight into the mind of the Good Professor.)

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harry Tuttle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're turning into a real bastard,
> Professor...
>
> And why would that be?
Just injecting some personality, Professor... It was meant as a compliment anyway

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> I'm saying that, generally, Christians are not all
> of one mind. They have a variety of stances. Of
> course they do have some core similarities.
Thank you for clarifying... Your statement did, indeed, make sense.

> No, I actually wouldn't. The standard of 'proof'
> is quite a high standard. Maths work off of
> proofs as do logical deductions, however science
> often does not.
>
> Take forensics, for instance, the conclusions they
> come to are based off of abductive reasoning.
> That is coming to a conclusion based on the best
> evidence. If you look at the evidence from the OJ
> trial, you can't conclusively prove that OJ did
> it. What you can do is provide sufficient
> evidence to come to a reasonable level of
> certainty that OJ did it.
>
> A proof would be as solid as 1+1=2
>
> Don't get me wrong - I understand what you are
> saying about evidence. I would say that you are
> referring to the common definition of proof, while
> I am not.
Actually, I would venture to say that I'm referring to the same proof you are. Like you said in the Mclean Bible thread, and my boy Descartes would agree, we could all be brains in jars. There is no REAL proof to the contrary, so I would say that a belief in anything without knowledge could be considered faith. (I know that doesn't jive with your definition of faith but I have some problems with your definition of faith since, frequently, there will be evidence to support two contrasting beliefs.)

What would you call a belief with evidence to support it, if the same belief also had evidence to the contrary?

> I wouldn't go so far as to say that there would be
> no support of the idea that the world would be
> better off. Herpes are often painful - limiting
> the amount of human suffering *is* promoting a
> better world.
Would you go so far as to say there would be no support of the idea that the world could be worse off? After all, previous experience points out that technological advancements have had a net gain as well as net loss in quality of life.

> Also, the uniformity of nature provides at the
> least basic evidence to suggest that chemicals in
> the past have improved our lives, so there's at
> least some evidence that chemicals could continue
> to improve our lives.
Some chemicals have also had a devastating effect on humanity, which could lead to a devastating effect on our world. Take the crack cocaine or meth epidemics for, just a small, example.

>
> I think you are aiming at positive atheism - the
> position that we can be certain that no gods
> exist. Atheism encompasses that view point, but
> is not limited to it. Atheism is a position on
> *belief*, not knowledge.
Isn't the definition of atheist "without god"? I'm no expert, but I thought Atheism was a position on god. (Since Theism is in the word)

> One can (claim) know that no gods exist - and be a
> strong/positive/gnostic atheist.
>
> One can say they don't know whether gods exist or
> not, but they don't believe in any gods - and be a
> weak/negative/agnostic atheist.
So in this case you're saying the atheist doesn't believe anything? I think you know what Descartes would say about not believing anything.


> One can (claim) know that god exists - and be a
> gnostic theist.
>
> One can say they don't know whether gods exist or
> not, but they believe in god - and be an
> agnostic/fideist theist.
Cool, I never knew there was a name for someone like me, other than heathen...

[offtopic]
> Math teachers suck, don't they? ;-)
Uh oh! Did I call it or what, Professor? Are you a MATH TEACHER!?

> Well, here's another piece of evidence to the
> contrary... :-)

I just hope it doesn't turn into that 17 page thread Hodu pointed out! YIKES!
[/offtopic]

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always liked the strong agnostic:
>
> I don't know and neither do you...

Amen?

Question: (1)How do those that believe in God reconcile the Science v Religion, (2)Inconsistencies of the Bible, (3)How they believe their God is the true God in light of all other religions.

(1) http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ - food for thought on science and religion

(2) Contradictions in the Bible will vanish as we continue to study it. Since Scripture brilliantly interprets Scripture, consulting all the texts on any disputed subject will clarify one's questions. We must not stop believing all the Bible just because something particular in it puzzles us. Scientists would never continue studying if questions, apparent contradictions, or challenges to previously-held views put an end to their research. Indeed, they see such conundrums as logical, necessary steps to further learning. Yet, these same people often reject the Bible because something they read confuses them or contradicts their long-held opinions.

Here are some considerations regarding contradictions in the Bible:

* Carefully consider the contexts in which the apparent contradiction exists. Those contexts include New Testament versus Old Testament perspectives. The New Testament offers the full and ultimate meaning of Old Testament accounts.

The classic example is the Apostle Paul's interpretation of Moses putting on the veil after his second visit to Mount Sinai. Compare Exodus 34:29-35 with 2 Corinthians 3:13-18. Those contexts also include teachings of Jesus. His demand that we mentally eliminate any source of temptation from life has been incorrectly used to mean one must literally and physically sever an offending limb or eye (Matthew 5:29-30). His teaching that we must not retaliate in personal relationships (Matthew 5:38-42) has been incorrectly used to oppose wars, to prevent indictment of criminals and to allow any freeloader with the gall to demand we surrender hard-earned money to him.

Those contexts also include apostolic teaching. For example, in Galatians 6:2, Paul commands us to carry each other's burdens, then in 6:5 says each person should carry his own load. No inconsistency exists if we understand that each Christian is accountable for his own life so long as he has it under control; but when sin so burdens us that we are led astray, God expects others to come alongside us and help lift the load.

Two principles help us here. First, every text must be read in its context. For any verse, containing a single thought, can mean anything -- true or false. Second, an invalid interpretation may be made of Scripture, but that invalidates only the interpretation, not the Scripture.

* Understand that all the writers agree in essence and differ only in details. This is especially important in studying the Gospels. Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 both record Christ's healing of the centurion's servant. A contradiction is removed if we understand that the centurion may well have come to Jesus once he saw Him arrive outside his house. Luke records that arrival.

An important point here: if the Gospel accounts agreed in every detail, collusion would be rightly charged. However, critics are so anxious to convict the Bible of fraud that they consider as proof of inconsistency personal details that serve the writer's purpose. Critics fault the Gospels when they agree in essence and when they disagree in detail. God will reveal any fact needed to prove the validity of His word, but nothing to satisfy our curiosity or remove our objections. The Bible assumes God's existence, but God won't tolerate critics assuming the Bible's guilt until it proves innocent. No less a scholar than Will Durant, himself a skeptic, admitted that if the tests applied to New Testament books were applied to ancient writings, none of them would be considered true.

(3) Some people believe that all the religions in the world are basically the same. But that simply is not true. Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in a personal God who has revealed Himself to mankind. Buddhists and Hindus believe God is impersonal and unknowable. But God cannot be both personal and impersonal -- both concepts cannot be correct.

But Christianity is also different from all other religions of the world in one other vitally important concept -- the idea that God reached out to man to save him because man was helpless to save himself.

Every other religion in the world is based on man's efforts to reach God. These world religions teach that man must somehow do righteous deeds or perform religious service in order to become good enough for salvation. In order to be saved a person must pray a certain number of times, in a certain manner, facing a certain direction. Or he must wear a particular type of religious garment. Or he must visit a certain religious shrine or temple. Or he must worship in a particular way.

Some religions require sacrifice and even the infliction of pain upon a believer in order to become holy in the sight of God. Some extreme religions require adherents to beat themselves with whips or rods to show their devotion to God. Some require pilgrims to crawl on their knees a certain distance in prayer in order to earn righteous points with God. Some religions require worship on Friday; others on Saturday; and others on Sunday.

But in all of this, the striving after righteousness is based on the religious activity of the man or woman. In every other religious system besides Christianity, a spiritual scale hangs over the head of the individual, with all of the sins they have committed on one side and all of their righteous deeds on the other. The person never knows whether they have been good enough, or prayed enough, or worked hard enough to earn the righteous points needed to counter their earned sins.

But the Christian Bible teaches that man is a sinner and could never earn salvation by what he or she did.

The apostle Paul makes it clear that salvation is available only through the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made when he carried the sins of the world on the cross.

Jesus never sinned. So He was the only one who could pay the price and carry the sins of all people who ever lived upon himself on the cross. He was the sacrificial lamb who took upon himself the sin of the people. This salvation comes only through the grace of God toward man, and we can only receive it by faith -- not by any deed that we could ever do.

No matter how good you are; no matter how religious you are; no matter what you do for God, you can never be good enough, or holy enough to earn salvation.
Any plan of salvation that is based on the efforts of man is doomed to failure. But the Bible tells us that salvation has been made available to us because Jesus came to earth and bore our sins on the cross.

All we have to do is believe and receive what Jesus did to bring salvation to us. God has given us the grace to receive salvation; all we have to do is open the door by faith.

The ONLY way to heaven is through a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. You must realize your sinful condition, confess to God that you are a sinner, believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Who died upon the cross for your sins, believe that Jesus Christ is the only One Who can save you, and then turn in child-like faith to the Lord asking for the forgiveness of all your sins. It's that simple to be saved. Salvation is NOT found in a religion, but in a Person -THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!

I am a follower of Jesus. Some people will read this and say I am wrong. Some will read it and begin to search and think. Others will understand where I am coming from. Albeit right, wrong or indifferent, we will all end up underground in a box dead. If Christianity is wrong, then you were right, the ridicule I took for being a Christian was harmless. If Christianity is right, and there is eternal life, then we both know where we each will be come that day of judgment by God. You can be in Heaven with Jesus or in hell with all the other naysayers who said God didn’t exists and didn’t accept the free gift of Salvation on the cross. The choice is yours to make.

.
Attachments:

1 John 5:13-

I suggest you check out Alistair Begg with Truth for Life. He talks frequently about trying to use reason to rationalize faith and how you can't do it. He is a devout Christian who wisely encourages his congregation not to use science to test the validity of faith.

WashingTone Locian - Thanks for the info. I don't need science to support my convictions. I wanted to share with those who say that science has the answers. Ben's video does an excellent job with providing facts and asking good questions about science and God. It would get folks thinking and encourage them to look further and deeper. After all, they need science to answer their initial questions. Thank you for sharing.

(2) Contradictions in the Bible will vanish as we continue to study it.

That is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time....thanks...I thought everyone on here had lost their sense of humor by now. Not you!

Vince 's Idol:
Attachments:

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First,
> Thank you Naru for pointing out that thread. It is
> quite an interesting read... (and gives me deeper
> insight into the mind of the Good Professor.)


What thread would that be? Mclean Biblechurch?


> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Harry Tuttle Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > You're turning into a real bastard,
> > Professor...
> >
> > And why would that be?
> Just injecting some personality, Professor... It
> was meant as a compliment anyway


Fair enough - I often get called names in these sorts of discussions. Some deserved, some not, but generally I like to know why. :-)


> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > I'm saying that, generally, Christians are not
> all
> > of one mind. They have a variety of stances.
> Of
> > course they do have some core similarities.
> Thank you for clarifying... Your statement did,
> indeed, make sense.
>
> > No, I actually wouldn't. The standard of
> 'proof'
> > is quite a high standard. Maths work off of
> > proofs as do logical deductions, however
> science
> > often does not.
> >
> > Take forensics, for instance, the conclusions
> they
> > come to are based off of abductive reasoning.
> > That is coming to a conclusion based on the
> best
> > evidence. If you look at the evidence from the
> OJ
> > trial, you can't conclusively prove that OJ did
> > it. What you can do is provide sufficient
> > evidence to come to a reasonable level of
> > certainty that OJ did it.
> >
> > A proof would be as solid as 1+1=2
> >
> > Don't get me wrong - I understand what you are
> > saying about evidence. I would say that you
> are
> > referring to the common definition of proof,
> while
> > I am not.
> Actually, I would venture to say that I'm
> referring to the same proof you are. Like you said
> in the Mclean Bible thread, and my boy Descartes
> would agree, we could all be brains in jars. There
> is no REAL proof to the contrary, so I would say
> that a belief in anything without knowledge could
> be considered faith. (I know that doesn't jive
> with your definition of faith but I have some
> problems with your definition of faith since,
> frequently, there will be evidence to support two
> contrasting beliefs.)

Fair enough - however I don't think that you will get very fair with epistemic skepticism. I don't really see why it's necessary either. I guess I'm more of a pragmaticist though.

As for faith - that's fine, we define it differently. I think that we both have a better understanding of what the other means when they say 'faith' and that's the important thing. It seems to me that you would consider most things as 'faith' endeavors. With the exception being math and alcohol.

> What would you call a belief with evidence to
> support it, if the same belief also had evidence
> to the contrary?

Well, that would depend. I would say that it wasn't evidence or that neither belief was supportable.

> > I wouldn't go so far as to say that there would
> be
> > no support of the idea that the world would be
> > better off. Herpes are often painful -
> limiting
> > the amount of human suffering *is* promoting a
> > better world.
> Would you go so far as to say there would be no
> support of the idea that the world could be worse
> off? After all, previous experience points out
> that technological advancements have had a net
> gain as well as net loss in quality of life.

Yes, it is possible that it could be a lot worse off - but I think that the evidence of the past shows that technology has improved our lives more then it has harmed it.

> > Also, the uniformity of nature provides at the
> > least basic evidence to suggest that chemicals
> in
> > the past have improved our lives, so there's at
> > least some evidence that chemicals could
> continue
> > to improve our lives.
> Some chemicals have also had a devastating effect
> on humanity, which could lead to a devastating
> effect on our world. Take the crack cocaine or
> meth epidemics for, just a small, example.

Very true - which means that we should be careful with those chemicals, not that we should abandon them.

> > I think you are aiming at positive atheism -
> the
> > position that we can be certain that no gods
> > exist. Atheism encompasses that view point,
> but
> > is not limited to it. Atheism is a position on
> > *belief*, not knowledge.
> Isn't the definition of atheist "without god"? I'm
> no expert, but I thought Atheism was a position on
> god. (Since Theism is in the word)

It is a position on god - whether you believe god exists or not. It is not a position on knowledge of god. That was what I was attempting to differentiate.

> > One can (claim) know that no gods exist - and be
> a
> > strong/positive/gnostic atheist.
> >
> > One can say they don't know whether gods exist
> or
> > not, but they don't believe in any gods - and be
> a
> > weak/negative/agnostic atheist.
> So in this case you're saying the atheist doesn't
> believe anything? I think you know what Descartes
> would say about not believing anything.

No, not epistemically. Atheism is not a worldview. It is one position on one topic. Some atheists lack belief in god's existence whereas others claim to have knowledge about it.

This says nothing about any other metaphysical beliefs they might have.

> > One can (claim) know that god exists - and be a
> > gnostic theist.
> >
> > One can say they don't know whether gods exist
> or
> > not, but they believe in god - and be an
> > agnostic/fideist theist.
> Cool, I never knew there was a name for someone
> like me, other than heathen...

Depending on your beliefs, we could narrow it down further. There are a ton of names out there....

> > Math teachers suck, don't they? ;-)
> Uh oh! Did I call it or what, Professor? Are you a
> MATH TEACHER!?

Ha, no, no I am not. I am not an actual Professor. I get the sense that my username was funny and ironic *to me*, but no one else...

> > Well, here's another piece of evidence to the
> > contrary... :-)
>
> I just hope it doesn't turn into that 17 page
> thread Hodu pointed out! YIKES!
>

Heh, you should see some of my other message board postings...

> Amen?

I will say that I am very sympathetic to the view of the strong agnostic.

1 John 5:13 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question: (1)How do those that believe in God
> reconcile the Science v Religion,
> (2)Inconsistencies of the Bible, (3)How they
> believe their God is the true God in light of all
> other religions.
>
> (1) http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ - food for
> thought on science and religion

Unfortunately expelled just makes your team look looney. I mean, the entire move is a logical fallacy - the naturalist fallacy combined with an ad hominem.

The theory of relativity led to the atomic bomb, which killed millions. That is horrible, but does that mean that relativity is false?

No.

So even if you could link artificial selection (ie, not Darwin's natural selection) with the Holocaust (and conveniently ignore the millenia of religious bigotry of the Jews) you still haven't shown that evolution was responsible.

> (2) Contradictions in the Bible will vanish as we
> continue to study it. Since Scripture brilliantly
> interprets Scripture, consulting all the texts on
> any disputed subject will clarify one's questions.
> We must not stop believing all the Bible just
> because something particular in it puzzles us.
> Scientists would never continue studying if
> questions, apparent contradictions, or challenges
> to previously-held views put an end to their
> research. Indeed, they see such conundrums as
> logical, necessary steps to further learning. Yet,
> these same people often reject the Bible because
> something they read confuses them or contradicts
> their long-held opinions.

This is utterly irrelevant. For one, it's simply not true and I would bet that you haven't read the bible if you hold this position. For two, let's just suppose it is true - that there aren't any contradictions in the bible.

So what? If I wrote a book without contradiction, does that mean it's been touched by God?

No. It just means that I wrote a book without contradiction. You know, I don't think the Stand had any contradictions in it either - does that mean it actually happened?

<>

> (3) Some people believe that all the religions in
> the world are basically the same. But that simply
> is not true. Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe
> in a personal God who has revealed Himself to
> mankind. Buddhists and Hindus believe God is
> impersonal and unknowable. But God cannot be both
> personal and impersonal -- both concepts cannot be
> correct.

This is false - Hindus believe in personal gods - Avatars and such. I think you meant to refer to other more animistic religions, such as Shintoism.

But what does your point 3 have to do with anything, anyway?

> But Christianity is also different from all other
> religions of the world in one other vitally
> important concept -- the idea that God reached out
> to man to save him because man was helpless to
> save himself.

Erm, this isn't true either. Look up Zoroastrianism. Look up the mystery religions.

But let's assume it is...so what?

> Every other religion in the world is based on
> man's efforts to reach God. These world religions
> teach that man must somehow do righteous deeds or
> perform religious service in order to become good
> enough for salvation. In order to be saved a
> person must pray a certain number of times, in a
> certain manner, facing a certain direction. Or he
> must wear a particular type of religious garment.
> Or he must visit a certain religious shrine or
> temple. Or he must worship in a particular way.

Shintoism doesn't, nor does Zoroastrianism.

Further, some in Christianity would argue that salvation IS based on works. Not to mention the fact that you have to believe in god in order to be saved - ergo "man must somehow do *A* righteous deed" to reach salvation.

> Some religions require sacrifice and even the
> infliction of pain upon a believer in order to
> become holy in the sight of God.

Christianity is one of those religions - or did you forget about it's roots in Judaism? Further, let's look back to the middle ages, where they had roving bands of self flagellators.

> Some extreme
> religions require adherents to beat themselves
> with whips or rods to show their devotion to God.

Some Christians...

> Some require pilgrims to crawl on their knees a
> certain distance in prayer in order to earn
> righteous points with God. Some religions require
> worship on Friday; others on Saturday; and others
> on Sunday.
>
> But in all of this, the striving after
> righteousness is based on the religious activity
> of the man or woman. In every other religious
> system besides Christianity, a spiritual scale
> hangs over the head of the individual, with all of
> the sins they have committed on one side and all
> of their righteous deeds on the other. The person
> never knows whether they have been good enough, or
> prayed enough, or worked hard enough to earn the
> righteous points needed to counter their earned
> sins.

You are engaged in confirmation bias.

But this whole thing is a red herring. Let's assume that Christianity is unique in this regard.

So what?

> But the Christian Bible teaches that man is a
> sinner and could never earn salvation by what he
> or she did.

Which they got from Judaism and which is morally repugnant.

> The apostle Paul makes it clear that salvation is
> available only through the sacrifice that Jesus
> Christ made when he carried the sins of the world
> on the cross.

Much like the other mystery religions.

> Jesus never sinned. So He was the only one who
> could pay the price and carry the sins of all
> people who ever lived upon himself on the cross.

Gee, god makes us to break his artificial rules and then gets upset about it and the only way to rectify it is to kill himself?

You claim this makes sense?

No, it's abhorrent:

1. Someone atoning for my wrong doings is not morally good.
2. Someone demanding *death* to make up my wrong doings is not morally good.
3. Someone prescribing an infinite punishment for a finite crime is not morally good.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being Jewish. For that, we call him evil. God burns Anne Frank for being Jewish, forever. For that, Christians call him "good" "

<>

> If Christianity is right, and there
> is eternal life, then we both know where we each
> will be come that day of judgment by God. You can
> be in Heaven with Jesus or in hell with all the
> other naysayers who said God didn’t exists and
> didn’t accept the free gift of Salvation on the
> cross. The choice is yours to make.

And he ends on Pascal's Wager.

1. You have no means of determining probability. Just because the outcome is desirable doesn't mean I should believe in it.

For instance, If I chase after rainbows I might find a pot of gold, therefore I should chase after rainbows.

That doesn't hold because we have no evidence of gold being at the end of rainbows - but according to your logic, we should chase after rainbows.

2. What if we are both wrong and the Egyption Eschatology is correct. Then we will both be screwed since we don't have the magic spells to pass Ma'at's test!

The point here is that there are millions of deities out there and no reason to suppose one is more likely then any of the others.

I think I'll just scroll to the top of this thread, mark it read, and move on.

I feel better now.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

k



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 12:26PM by inkahootz.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2009 01:44PM by inkahootz.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is possible to believe in a god and not be
> Jewish, Christian, Muslin, or any other spin-off.
> You don't even need to have read the bible or set
> foot inside a church/temple/... etc.
> God and evolution don't necessarily contradict,
> nor do god and science.
>
>

This is what the first chapter of Romans says.1:19

(1) [www.expelledthemovie.com] - food for thought on science and religion



... i lol'd at that for a while... expelled the movie has been debunked numerous times as a biased piece of shit. you could find out how much bullshit is in this movie by simply reading amazon customer reviews of it... im surprised kirk cameron wasnt in it.

expelled the movie has been debunked numerous times as a biased piece of shit

And this Religilous piece of garbage wasn't?

Steve Wilhite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> expelled the movie has been debunked numerous
> times as a biased piece of shit
>
> And this Religilous piece of garbage wasn't?


no it wasnt, because there was nothing to debunk, sure it may have not been funny, and it may not have changed any christians minds, but bill did not present any facts that were untrue or misleading. He has even stated numerous times that what he preaches is simply "i dont know, and neither do you."