I don't get Christianity because.

[Xard]

There is no evidence of their being an afterlife so due to a lack of evidence of something existing has more credibility than the evidence of something not existing.

 

Since when afterlife it has been possible to research afterlife empirically?

[Hell Kitty]

One can only talk like that if he believes there's no afterlife.

 

I believe the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, I have faith that Santa doesn't exist!

[Xard]

I've never said there's empiric proof of afterlife.

 

Faith is asking an intelligent person to accept that 2+2 = 5. If he does this he will live a fuller spirtual life and will not be haunted by the gloom of his own inevitable destruction. Some people however, can't accept the 5 whether they will be better off for it or not.

 

I was mostly commenting this. It is statement of personal belief. "can't accept", "inevitable destruction" etc. is all one's personal opinion

[Deadly_Nightshade]

How can you believe that when you die, you sieze to exit? Entirely, no afterlife, no consciousness, no anything. Thinking of death must leave you with a really hollow feeling.

 

You know only the fabrications you have read and deduced. Your god is not tangible therefore you cannot justly say you "know" anything about it. We all know the stories and you repeating them does not strengthen the case. We all perceive it as we wish and that is our prerogative. While, it is your prerogative to try and sway us you have done nothing but regurgitate, in my mind, drivel. When I say show me evidence you show me unproven stories and romantic fantasies. Your deductions and perceptions are not proof. I want evidence that is proved to the extent that it can be proven. Wherein, I am asking for tangible evidence not more "insight" into fictional stories.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

science can not and will never be able to explain everything.

 

You have NO eyewitnesses, you have accounts that were written. You have the bible... a book that has been translated and rewritten hundreds of times. Consider the source. Do you think that the writers and re-writers would discredit themselves by saying that there were not a substantial amount of people that witnessed it. The point is this resurrection is not possible in the physical world we occupy. This raises a question, that you may choose to answer or not, why would the same god that creates a physical world to separate the faithful from the unfaithful then arbitrarily break it's own laws? If you do choose to answer do not even try to sway me with some cop-out like, "It is all according to god's plan."

What is this crap about giants? I can only surmise that if you take the bible at face value you take "Jack and the Beanstalk" at face value. So, I do not even want to address this. Show me the evidence.

Yes, you are correct many places in the bible have been found. Or rather it is believed that they have been found. There is no evidence, however, that proves these are the same places. Even if they are so what? There are a lot of historic accuracies in the bible. That does not mean every word of it is true by default. "OMFG, The Garden of Eden was a real place (Bahraih). Therefore, the story of Adam and Eve is true!" That is a ludicrous conclusion. A lot of your proof has actually only, conveniently, been seen by one or two people.

The problem is that your evidence is not something that can be used today and therefore your proof is that god is infallible. Rather, everything is according it's plan. How am I supposed to prove this wrong? However, thankfully it is a two way path and I challenge you to prove god's existence. Don't give me some romantic ideological drivel either. Like, "compassion is proof of god" or "love" or any other corny reason. I want tangible evidence. I want hard evidence. I challenge you to prove to me it's existence.

[213374U]

How can you believe that when you die, you sieze to exit? Entirely, no afterlife, no consciousness, no anything. Thinking of death must leave you with a really hollow feeling.

 

You know only the fabrications you have read and deduced. Your god is not tangible therefore you cannot justly say you "know" anything about it. We all know the stories and you repeating them does not strengthen the case. We all perceive it as we wish and that is our prerogative. While, it is your prerogative to try and sway us you have done nothing but regurgitate, in my mind, drivel. When I say show me evidence you show me unproven stories and romantic fantasies. Your deductions and perceptions are not proof. I want evidence that is proved to the extent that it can be proven. Wherein, I am asking for tangible evidence not more "insight" into fictional stories.

Prove that you are in and of yourself, and not just a figment of my imagination. I will settle for the reverse, too.

[Xard]

One can only talk like that if he believes there's no afterlife.

 

I believe the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, I have faith that Santa doesn't exist!

 

 

That doesen't follow, you are reversing the burden of evidence.

 

Of course I can't say that since I'm actually defending religion. "

 

What hapened to ?

Edited February 1, 2007 by Xard

[Gorgon]

I don't have to prove god doesen't exist, i'm an agnostic.

[Hurlshort]

I can't explain my faith in a higher power any better than I can explain love. I look at the world and I don't see how it could possibly be a random chain of events that brought us to this place. But that's my belief, you can argue science all day and it won't change unless you can figure out how to reproduce our universe scientifically.

 

I can see arguing over organized religion, but it should be noted that all religions are just a means to an end. They are there so that humans can feel connected to a higher power. It's your perogative not to feel that is necessary, but humans have been doing it since the dawn of time, so it shouldn't be trivialized.

[Dark Moth]

First off, this may have been better handled through PM, but hey these boards don't get enough religion threads anyway!

 

Mainly that the way to salvation is through Jesus. How does that work? To me it is counter productive for it imposes guilt

[Sand]

Um, Darth Moth, Parthenogenesis is a form of conception.

[Dark Moth]

Unless you're a plant or an invertebrate, Sand, then no. " And no, Mary did not conceive Jesus, speaking from the Christian perspective. She merely carried him.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Sand]

Tell that to the komodo dragon that went through the process.

 

http://www.strangeark.com/blog/2006/12/kom...enogenesis.html

 

Higher life forms than "plant or an invertebrate" have gone through parthenogenesis and it is a very very rare occurrence. And if such event occurred with Mary, just imagine how a primitive people who lived 2000+ years ago would interpret it. They would interpret it as a supernatural event, a miracle of God, because they would have no true understanding of the physiological process that was involved.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

Tell that to the komodo dragon that went through the process.

 

http://www.strangeark.com/blog/2006/12/kom...enogenesis.html

 

Higher life forms than "plant or an invertebrate" have gone through parthenogenesis and it is a very very rare occurrence.

I know all about the Komodo dragon story, thanks. Some birds have even gone through it too, FYI, but it's not a human thing. Some higher vertebrates also change sexes. That does not mean it's something humans can do. Unless you can think of a time it's happened naturally among humans, then think of something else for an explanation. Birds and humans are all genetically different and have different means of conception than mammals. Trying to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Sand]

It is just as viable as a theory of what happened as a god impregnating a human woman, and has a greater scientific plausibility.

 

It has been done in mice: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040419/pf/040419-8_pf.html

 

Mice are often used to test subjects prior to human testing.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

I don't understand atheism, because it is confusing.

 

How can you believe that when you die, you cease to exit? Entirely, no afterlife, no consciousness, no anything. Thinking of death must leave you with a really hollow feeling.

Types of Weak Atheists

 

Weak atheism is a very broad category. It includes, among others:

• those who have never been introduced to the concept of God (implicit atheists)
  
• those who don't care enough about God to believe or disbelieve (apatheists)
  
• those who consider the question of God to be meaningless (ignostics)
  
• those who haven't made up their minds
  
• those who have made up their minds, deciding that the evidence doesn't warrant belief
  

The only requirement is to be neither a theist (theists believe god exists) nor a strong atheist (strong atheists believe god does not exist).

 

Types of Strong Atheists

Strong atheism also has plenty of room for variation. This group includes, for example:

• those who believe that God does not exist based on current evidence
  
• those who claim to know that God does not exist
  
• people who would change their belief based on new evidence
  
• people who would not change their belief regardless of new evidence
  
• those who believe that the concept of God is contradictory
  
• those who do not claim any logical reason for their belief
  

The only requirement is to accept as true the proposition "God does not exist".

 

clickie

[Dark Moth]

It is just as viable as a theory of what happened as a god impregnating a human woman, and has a greater scientific plausibility.

 

It has been done in mice: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040419/pf/040419-8_pf.html

 

Mice are often used to test subjects prior to human testing.

:wallbash:

 

First off, that was something that only happened with HUMAN INTERVENTION, genius (or should I say, empirical rationalist), and even then has a high failure rate. It does not occur naturally in mammals. Unless you're saying they had that kind of technology 2,000 years ago, which is perfectly plausible. " Mammals are not reptiles or birds or fish. It's not a viable theory at all, and it's obvious that biology is not one of your strong points. You want a viable theory, then simply say she wasn't a virgin, but trying to do what you're doing is just beyond absurd. Thank you, come again.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Gorgon]

God snapped his fingers and Mary was pregnant: the imaculate conception.

[Sand]

There are more plausible explanations but I wanted to keep the whole virgin birth theme because it is more fun.

 

As for technology, I believe it was Arthur C. Clarke that stated that any significantly advance form of technology would be indistinguishable to magic or the supernatural. I mean, if you took a military Humvee with a .50 cal machine gun back in the days of the 1st century C.E. how do you think people would react?

 

Now, the most plausible explanation for Jesus' birthing, not going the whole God route, is that she got pregnant out of wedlock, a stoning offense in those days I believe, which Mary and Joseph concocted a story (or maybe it was just Mary) that would not get herself killed.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Sand

[alanschu]

Faith is asking an intelligent person to accept that 2+2 = 5.

 

 

 

No it's not. Because your statement is simply incorrect. Faith is belief without proof. It's not believing in something despite it being incorrect.

[Sand]

Faith is more like 2a + 2b = 2c.

 

There are many ways to have faith and many ways to get it wrong as well as right.

[Blank]

Faith is asking an intelligent person to accept that 2+2 = 5.

No it's not. Because your statement is simply incorrect. Faith is belief without proof. It's not believing in something despite it being incorrect.

pwned.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Blank

[Sand]

Maybe. Faith tends to be a hit or miss proposition. There is no way to know with any sort of certainty that you are placing your faith rightly till it is too late.

[alanschu]

Faith is more like 2a + 2b = 2c.

 

There are many ways to have faith and many ways to get it wrong as well as right.

 

 

Not sure I follow. As long as a + b = c, your formula is true. Equating faith with Math is really not a good idea, as Math is exceptionally logical and has very firm rules.

[Sand]

Maybe I should have used Chaos Mathematics instead of Algebra. D'OH!

Edited February 1, 2007 by Sand