I don't get Christianity because.

[Dark Moth]

Also, no offense, but it's clear you've got some personal gripe against religion, and most of what you're spouting is BS and your own unfounded opinion. You've already stereotyped an entire group and call yourself tolerant.

 

Even the most tolerant people snap if enough pressure is applied, and my day provided that pressure. Also, how are your belifes any more well founded than my own?

Don't ask me, I'm not the one who went around ranting about how all atheists are intolerant, stereotyping, and edgy. " I'll tell you what though, next time I have bad day, I'll go on rant bashing all atheists, how about that? Keep this in mind too: the moment you become the thing you're fighting, you lose the battle.

 

Also, I think Ravenskya is right (again). I think it's best I left this discussion as well. Buena suerte, everyone. Adios.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Archmonarch]

Rant about Catholicism

 

Blank, I don't think you understand that the Catholic worldview is based upon a Medieval mindset whereas Protestantism is more dependent upon Renaissance and Enlightenment concepts. According to Catholicism, God is too exalted for any human to presume to communicate with directly and this belief necessitated the creation of intermediaries, i.e. Saints. Though I am not a Catholic myself, rather a proponent of the almost diametrically opposed agnosticism, I have studied religion and as I understand it, it isn't that the saints are worshipped, more so that they are honored for having proved themselves worthy to be god's secretaries by those who have still to meet the challenges of earthly existence.

 

Anyway, as for Mary, the seeming 'Cult of Mary' known as Mariology, in fact distinguishes between the worship of god and the veneration of the Saints and Mary. According to Catholic theology, no one but god can be worshipped, but others of worthy of praise. Anyway, Mary was a personification of the symbolic Lady Virtue, the idea woman pure in every manner. According to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception issued by Pope Pius IX in 1854, she was freed from all sin and all tendency to sin in the moment she conceived Jesus. Furthermore, by having born Jesus, she is sometimes considered a sort of co-pilot for him, having aided him in his mission by granting him the human blood and nature that allowed him to die on the cross, etc. Finally, veneration of Mary is mandatory for Catholics, as a result of Pope Pius XII's ex cathedra announcement of the Dogma of Assumption, stating that at her death Mary rose into heaven, body and soul. To summarize, there is a long history of honoring Mary from the beginnings of the Church and after the Dogma of Assumption in 1950, this belief has been mandatory for a true Catholic.

 

"i believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -Einstein

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Unless I'm completely confusing my philosophers, and I don't believe I am, Spinoza was a neutral monist pantheist, i.e. he believed everything is a part of god whom is a being of infinite attributes including mind and body (in opposition to Descartes' dualism). As a derivation thereof, he believed humans (as a part of the one reality that is god) had no freewill except to understand why things occurred as they did, and so everything occured out of necessity. Ravenskya's father's religious views are a classical Clockwork Universe and thus Deism.

 

--------------------

 

Anyway, here are my personal feelings on the matter. I think the concept of religion is worthwhile in that it promotes peace and unity, though most are founded upon a completely unconfirmable cosmology, but again that is the definition of faith, I suppose. The problem is organized religion, when faith become so entrenched in a culture through time and tradition that the ability to disagree or consider change is judged heresy by its most devout adherents. By becoming dogma, religion loses its original benefits, serving only to further divide and antagonize various groups. As it stands, only a small number of Eastern faiths/philosophies (the two having rather indistinct boundaries over there), distinct from Western religions in their focus on self-reflection rather than external salvation, are worthy of following, in their present state..

 

Finally, I've also wondered what Jesus did between his birth and the age of 30 that caused the writers of the Bible to desire to leave it out. Any explanations?

Edited February 2, 2007 by Archmonarch

[Gromnir]

"i believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -Einstein

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Unless I'm completely confusing my philosophers, and I don't believe I am, Spinoza was a neutral monist pantheist, i.e. he believed everything is a part of god whom is a being of infinite attributes including mind and body (in opposition to Descartes' dualism). As a derivation thereof, he believed humans (as a part of the one reality that is god) had no freewill except to understand why things occurred as they did, and so everything occured out of necessity. Ravenskya's father's religious views are a classical Clockwork Universe and thus Deism.

 

 

 

 

you really gotta read the entire thread before responding. maybe scroll up a page.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Archmonarch]

Hmm, I had at the time. But then I was drawn away before clicking post, and by the time I returned... Such is the price of time. No redundancy intended.

[Gromnir]

Hmm, I had at the time. But then I was drawn away before clicking post, and by the time I returned... Such is the price of time. No redundancy intended.

 

fair enough... have done that once or twice ourself.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Dark Moth]

Finally, I've also wondered what Jesus did between his birth and the age of 30 that caused the writers of the Bible to desire to leave it out. Any explanations?

(I'll come back in just for this). Probably because the most important stuff he did was around the age of 30. It was only after his Baptism by John when he was really 'called' to his mission.

 

But actually, Jesus's childhood has been written about, I think you'll want to check out the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Kind of fascinating, actually. However, it's part of the Apocrypha, and was considered non-canonical when the Bible was finally put together. Draw your own conclusions.

[Ravenskya]

Finally, I've also wondered what Jesus did between his birth and the age of 30 that caused the writers of the Bible to desire to leave it out. Any explanations?

 

I'm almost 100% positive that those 30 years were written about... just left out in the final publishing of the Bible. There were (I'm digging way back into the recesses of my brain on this one) over 200 different gospels written about the life of Jesus. A roman emperor (forget his name) had a huge meeting of the 3 groups of Christianity, there was the Roman Catholic, the Greek Orthodox and a Russian one. I think it was the Council of Mycea (again this was from a world religions class in 1994 I'm trying to recall). They picked the gospels that would become part of the bible, set the dates of the holidays and all that Jazz two of the ones you can buy at books-a-million are the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdaline. So I'm sure it was documented, just cut most likely due to Jesus having to come to terms with his fate. Sure he was the son of God, but he was still born human, and thus open to fear, doubt, self pity, and sin. I would love to have access to the Roman Catholic Archives, there would be so much less guessing if we could read all of the story. Of course that would be a heck of a lot of reading.

 

One thing to remember... even if he was not the Son of God... he was still the most influential man in all of documented history. No one, not even the most devout atheist can argue that.

[213374U]

When someone provides evidence against your god

Wait a second. The main reason why this debate keeps going (as it has, and it will) is because while you can't prove the existence of a God, you can't disprove it either. It's by definition impossible. So, what's that "evidence" you're talking about, again?

 

 

Books are written by man, man can LIE, or make fairy tales[...]

Human manipulation of and based on religion and the concepts of spirituality and metaphysical realities beyond our own are different things; moral judgements derived from the former are of no consequence to the possible validity of the latter.

[Ravenskya]

I have a question for the Atheists...

 

My roommate was a self proclaimed Atheist, he was also quite dense so our debates were never all that fulfilling. But nevertheless in many discussions I have had with Atheists I always get the vibe that it isn't really that they don't believe in a higher power... it's that they hate the higher power so much that they prefer to state that it isn't real rather than say that it could be real and maybe it's just really mean.

 

So my question is... do you really believe that there is no higher power or do you just really hate a higher power?

[Ravenskya]

Either my timing is bad... or I have run everyone off

 

*sulks in corner then decides to go to bed*

[Sand]

I have a question for the Atheists...

 

My roommate was a self proclaimed Atheist, he was also quite dense so our debates were never all that fulfilling. But nevertheless in many discussions I have had with Atheists I always get the vibe that it isn't really that they don't believe in a higher power... it's that they hate the higher power so much that they prefer to state that it isn't real rather than say that it could be real and maybe it's just really mean.

 

So my question is... do you really believe that there is no higher power or do you just really hate a higher power?

 

I for one am not an Atheist, but I do dislike God and the crap he has put mankind through with his various religions. Always making contradictory statements, placing one faction against another, and never giving a straight answer. God is a jerk, plain and simple. I would never worship a God like that, nor his kid, or even follow any of his so called prophets.

[Ravenskya]

I for one am not an Atheist, but I do dislike God and the crap he has put mankind through with his various religions. Always making contradictory statements, placing one faction against another, and never giving a straight answer. God is a jerk, plain and simple. I would never worship a God like that, nor his kid, or even follow any of his so called prophets.

 

 

Thank you, I appreciate your candor... I have often suspected that atheists truly feel the same as you do, only for one reason or another (in my roommate's case I believe it was fear of theological repercussions) they convince themselves that rather than believe in a cruel higher power it is easier to not believe.

 

It was just one of my points of curiosity.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...do you really believe that there is no higher power or do you just really hate a higher power?

 

Who needs "a higher power," it's just a power play by those who claim to be "god's" messengers. That said, if there were a "god," or "gods," I would loath him/her/it/them...

[alanschu]

Where did energy come from? It can't be created, or destroyed. How did it get here? Same goes for matter. Where did matter come from? And don't say 'the big bang'. Where did the matter before the big bang come from? You can't have something from nothing, so where did it come from?

We don't know.

 

 

As an aside, it's interesting that the Big Bang Theory was initially criticized by parts of the scientific community because it seemed to be too dependent on divine intervention.

 

 

My roommate was a self proclaimed Atheist, he was also quite dense so our debates were never all that fulfilling. But nevertheless in many discussions I have had with Atheists I always get the vibe that it isn't really that they don't believe in a higher power... it's that they hate the higher power so much that they prefer to state that it isn't real rather than say that it could be real and maybe it's just really mean.

 

So my question is... do you really believe that there is no higher power or do you just really hate a higher power?

 

Then I'd say your friend is not an athiest. At one time I considered myself an athiest, and I just didn't believe that a higher power existed. I felt it was a human construct created simply to try to explain things such as the questions posted in Dark Moth's quote earlier in my post. In recent years, I moved to agnostic, which was really the culmination in my apathy. Sure there could be a higher power. There might not be. I'm no longer going to worry myself about it.

[Gorgon]

"

Would you stay neutral when yours and others existence is at stake? Many dangers lurk, overpopulation, global warming, disease. When i made my decision it wasn't an absolute answer, it was my best guess, thats all everybody ever does"

 

I would much prefer to believe but self hypnosis is not a skill that I posess. Whether mankind is endangered or not will not change my perspective.

 

Agnostics are not people who haven't made up their minds, rather they accept that some questions will always remain unanswered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

 

You see this type of appeal to authority used ALL THE TIME. People will use an anecdote to make a point, and then say that Einstein said it because Einstein is a smart person and very introspective.

."

 

So any kind of particularly insigthful individual's thoughts are banned from discussions where the context is appropriate because someone arbitrarily decided that those are the rules for debate. Mkay.

[alanschu]

So any kind of particularly insigthful individual's thoughts are banned from discussions where the context is appropriate because someone arbitrarily decided that those are the rules for debate. Mkay

 

They aren't banned. They're just as useful as any other anecdote.

[Purgatorio]

I don't think you really even understand the concept. The whole concept of salvation through Jesus is the belief that God voluntarily took on a human nature, made himself flesh, and so made himself able to get closer to us. By doing that Jesus was able to take the burden of sins on himself and become sort of the ultimate blood offering. Because of this, it eliminated the need for sacrifice and the need for us to be punished for any transgressions in the afterlife. The concept of any guilt that it might impose is just the acknowledgment that whenever one denies the gift of the crucifixion and resurrection is to outright reject the gift in the first place. (Sounds pretty absurd to you I'm sure, but try to put yourself in a deity's shoes.) Because of this we in a way took place in the crucifixion (metaphorically speaking). Also, what do you mean it is counterproductive to impose guilt? I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning. I'm curious though, have you ever actually studied the religion? (reading a few verses or taking a 5-day lecture doesn't count)

 

But is a child who knows nothing of religion any further from God than a learned person of the cloth? New emoticons!

 

Not coming from a Christian background it isn

Edited February 2, 2007 by Purgatorio

[Calax]

Ravenskya

 

 

 

Darwins eye is not entirly a good argument

 

http://www.kent-hovind.com/evolution/index2.htm

 

go to "total lack of evolutionary evidence" and scroll down a few lines (this site is a favorite of mine that takes a very..... stupid young earth "teacher" and kicks the crap out of his arguments.)

 

I personally don't care if there is a higher power, but if there is it feels like anything we do is prescripted because of the way ANY monotheistic society works (god is all powerful all knowing) so we just don't have a chance to make our own choices (think matrix revolutions/reloaded about seeing the future).

 

Also the Apocraphal texts of the bible include everything from God exiling/killing a pack of angels who slept with humans and had progeny but was so impressed by their defense lawyer that the lawyer was given superpowers and turned from simple Enoch to Metatron (methinks those are the right names).

 

They've also got jesus having more family than just him, and Has jesus having kids.

 

BTW since when is porn a sin? I don't think it's covered by lust.

 

And the Emperor of rome your looking for is Constantine.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Calax

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Human Eyes and Octopus Eyes

 

Here is a section of the back of your eyeball. The back of your eye is about one square inch but it contains 137 million light sensitive cells. ..... I got a call a couple of years ago. This guy called up. .....

He said, “The eye is poorly designed. Mr. Hovind, don't you know the blood vessels are in front of the retina?”

I said, “Oh, yes sir I knew about that.”

He said, “Don't you know that means the light has to go through the blood vessels to get to the retina so that kind of blurs your vision a little bit.

I said, “Well, I don't think it blurs the vision any but yes it is true that the light has to go through the blood vessels. You're right about that.”

He said, “See, that's a poor design!” He said, “The octopus has a much better eye because their blood vessels are behind the retina.”

I said, “Sir, I don't know who you are or where you are calling from, but let me explain something to you. We live in the air. UV light from the sun comes down right through the air, it doesn't get slowed down hardly at all coming through the air and UV light will burn your retina. And so we have blood vessels in front of the retina to protect us from UV light. Now, octopuses live in the water. Water stops UV light so they don't need the blood vessels in front. Now, if you want to swap eyes with an octopus have at it, but you'd be blind in a few days. We need the blood vessels in front. It's incredibly designed! Do you have any other dumb questions?”

He said, “No, that was it.”

Click.

Anybody that says the eyeball is a poor design is ignorant or a liar! It's incredibly designed!

 

Contradiction Compare this anecdote to this statement by Hovind claiming human eyes and octopus eyes are similar.

 

Contradiction If UV light burns skin then it will surely damage a naked blood vessel, which would result in scarring that would mean, damaged eyesight. UV light can even penetrate into the skin. If visible light will reach the retina then logically so will UV light. Any direct intense light will damage the retina, which is why you should never look directly at the sun, a welding flame, or a high powered laser for example. It is the iris that filters the intensity of incoming light under normal conditions

 

Another 'problem' with human eyes and all other mammals etc is there is a blind spot that the brain has to compensate for by constructing a virtual image minus the hole. This blind spot is a result of the nerves coming from the light receptors travel on the inside of the eyeball to a central point where they a linked to the optic nerve. The result is an area in the centre of the eyeball that does not have any light receptors. There is no advantage for this structure. A more efficient structure would have the light receptors connected to nerves at the back of the eye. The inefficient 'blind spot' design does however serve its purpose which is why it was not filtered by natural selection.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Deadly_Nightshade

[alanschu]

We all got the link and are quite capable of reading it. There's no need to post the whole quotation from it.

[julianw]

True story of Jesus Christ.

[alanschu]

Thank you for that.

[Gorgon]

All the proof of god arguments are so universally stupid, and conversely I don't think it's possible to disprove in scientific terms a concept that defies science.

[alanschu]

All the proof of god arguments are so universally stupid, and conversely I don't think it's possible to disprove in scientific terms a concept that defies science.

 

 

It isn't. One of the failings about religions in the eyes of the scientific community is that they aren't falsifiable, which is a principle foundation of empiricism.

Edited February 2, 2007 by alanschu

[julianw]

It may seem strange to Atheists that religious people would worship an unseen God that cannot be grasped through reason; but it is equally strange for the religious to see that Atheists would believe that what cannot be sensed must be unreal or doubtful and one must worship only which is sensed and understand the world through his/her five senses only. Free will gives us the power to choose however we wish to perceive the world around us: to be an Atheist, a Bible-freak or agnostic; but science is but an art that has no will of its own. It is certainly not science that provides us with this power, so I wonder why seeking proof of God through means beyond science would be stupid?

Edited February 2, 2007 by julianw