Print

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (Rebel-Soul @ Mar 19 2003, 05:58 AM)

The big bang is f'in bull shit. (No offense) If you think about it how can it be true! I explained in my post. There has to be matter to beget matter. However even then it is not likely. What was the source of the bang. Where was the source from. How can something come from nothing. That is why we beleive in a superior being beyond time and space capable of making something out of nothing. Jesus the Christ was just the same as you and me besides one thing his Divine nature. He learned and grew just like us. He was not all knowing in the sense we think of it yes he was God but he was man he had to be bound to its limits. We too are bounds to matter. the sqwishy mass in our cranium is not our intellect. for we are capable of knowing everything. however...age and matter prevent us from doing so. The soul is the imortal spirit inside our manly nature. this is why there is an after life because if something is immortal it cannot die thus there must be a place for them. it could be other dimensions. (quite no linier if you ask me... ) So there is a God we can easily prove this as i have. granted people are stubborn in their ignorance and won't change. As far as other Gods and other christian religions this thread could easily last yrs. Hinduism was not the first religion. Whatever the religion of Sumer was...

If ignorance were grounds for believing in supernatural phenomena, then we might as well have stuck with tribal fetishism and sacrificing virgins to volcanos to appease the fire gods.  Simply because we haven't figured out what the origins of the universe are, or because they are simply beyond the reach of our scientific understanding, does not make them automatically divine in source.

Example: the universe is run by invisible monkeys that we are unable to perceive, but you see I wrote this whole book about how they talk to me so I know they're there.  That is as scientifically valid as your Christian god.  

For the 101st time, Creationism, no matter how moderate, is an ideological argument based on faith, and only faith.  There are no scientific grounds for belief in any particular higher power, nor any to conclusively disprove its existence.

[Potenza]

QUOTE (Horizon @ Mar 14 2003, 11:15 PM)

LOL!  That's my God for ya.    God:  "You don't believe...TO THE BOWELS OF BLOODY HELL WIT YA!"  What a nice guy.  Oh well.  I had a good run.

May I remark that in the new testament there is no mention of Hell? Only of forgiveness?

To all you people who havn't made their minds up:

Descartes (French Philosopher (And I don't know if he would or would not support the war on Iraq)) once said it is mathematically the safest bet to believe in God Because:

1. If you don't believe in God (Assuming that God, Allah, Jahwe are all different words that point to the same essence), and he/she/it does exist, you could be in a lot of trouble.

2. If you do believe in God, and he/she/it does not exist, it doesn't matter anyway, as there is no setback to believing.

I just wish that all religions would realise the core of the matter: Love, compassion, care. And that stupid religious leaders would stop issuing strange orders. And that goes for muslims, christians, jews and all others.

I'm "catholic" my self, but that does not mean I agree to everything the Pope says.

It's like a teacher of mine once said, God equals love, God is the incarnation of love. To believe in God is to believe in Love.

So if you believe in love, you believe in what God really stands for and for him (should he exist) that would count as believing in what he stands for / is.

Never forget: the bible was written by people in a certain time to translate their feelings and experiences.

Just my 2 cents

Final Note: There is nothing wrong with believing / religion. There is just something wrong with people who abuse religion to their own benefit. (e.g. acquiring more power over others). Crusades and inquisition for example.

[Novahux]

This is all too serious now, its about time someone moved it to the comedy section.


First the Lord made man in the Garden of Eden.
> > > > > Then he said to himself, "There's something he's needin' ".

> > > > > After casting about for a suitable pearl, He kept messing around and
> > > > > created a girl.
> > > > >
> > > > > Two beautiful legs, so long and so slender,
> > > > > Round, slim, and firm, and ever so tender.
> > > > > Two lovely hips to increase his desire,
> > > > > And rounded and firm to bring out the fire.
> > > > > Two lovely breasts, so full and so proud,
> > > > > Commanding his eyes, as he whispers aloud.
> > > > > Two lovely arms, just aching to bless you,
> > > > > And two loving hands, to soothe and caress you.
> > > > > Soft, cascading hair hung down over her shoulder,
> > > > > And two dreamy eyes, just to make him grow bolder. Twas made
> > > > > for a man, just to make his heart sing. Then he added a mouth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ruined the whole fucking thing.

[Potenza]

   

[jujupinto85]

QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 18 2003, 08:17 PM)

QUOTE (jujupinto85 @ Mar 19 2003, 12:33 AM) king James BIBLE? umm have u ever heard KING JAMES story??? he broke straight from the church and the pope, just cuz he coudldnt have his own way.. who gives a damn what king james has to say and since it not really important cuz he aint the king nemore,  where its from  You're wrong.  King Henry VIII was the man who ordered the separation from the Catholic Church after the pope refused to sanction his divorce.  King James I was originally King James VI of Scotland, and a Catholic to boot.  He did a passable imitation of conversion to Church of England upon his coronation, but as was shown by the troubles his son experienced as someone perceived as a Catholic trying to take over England with popery, it's pretty obvious it was a sham. James I was extremely interested in his faith, and the King James version is widely recognized to be the most excellent English language version of the bible, despite its flaws.

good job lizard king you have been doing your research, thanks for clearing that up for me, my history teacher would have killed me for the statement i made, so inaccurtate LOL

well king jams bible vs the Vulgate, Septugint, and the ohter one (those are just translations, Vulgate = latin, septugint = Greek, all from the aramachic language, ITHINK?? maybe hebrew, lol im not really sure now its been a year from these classes)

QUOTE

The Protestant Bible is the True Bible. How can it be, when they cut out seven books from the Old Testament: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Ecclesiastes), Baruch, and the two books of Machabees, as well as various sections of other Books. Luther removed these books because they did not suit his new doctrines. Luther is guilty of using the principle of private judgement - of picking and choosing religious doctrines. Whenever any book taught a doctrine that was contrary to his own, he threw that book out. He and others also mutilated some of the books that were left (see number 6). Many Protestant preachers and Bishops have written volumes pointing out the errors in the King James Version and the Revised Version. In a convention of ministers some years ago in St. Louis, MO., a Presbyterian minister urged the necessity of a new translation of the Protestant Bible because there were no less than 30,000 errors in it.

so there are big mistakes, not just simple translation mistakes in these protesent bibles, lizard king again thanks for correcting me

[Potenza]

QUOTE

hate to keep doing this, but the French mathematician you are thinking of is Blaise Pascal, not Descartes. Descartes came up with the first wholly reason based "proof" of God's existence (unfortunately it is logically flawed, but that's another story), as well as some really irritating treatises on human perception and such.

Sorry, my mistake. And yes Descartes 2 ways of prooving that God exist where not very "stable".

QUOTE

Any higher power that requires servitude and submission in addition to that is demanding a compromise of my personal ethics

Question is: is this what God wants you to do? IMO NO. Love others like you love yourself.

QUOTE

In any case, Pascal's wager, while certainly logically valid for those that prioritize hedging their bets, misses the importance of principle to many atheists.

But it is still the best bet!

QUOTE

However, I do think that establishing an easy to follow, basically useful and good pattern of morals is Christianity's greatest contribution to the western world.

True. But also probably the most abused for personal glory.

QUOTE

but the fact remains that being a dissident in Catholic Spain was exponentially more safe than being a Catholic in any of the countries experiencing the violent Reformation, or for that matter being anyone who was different in Protestant held areas

True. I didn't say crusades / inquisition where any better than what other people did. Being a Catholic, I was just trying to show that some self criticism isn't a bad thing.

[Rebel-Soul]

OMG you guys still got it wrong! Des Cartes did not believe in a god! he was an athiest so to speak. Cogito ergo sum. Please translate and tell me what you think.

[Lbtg43]

QUOTE (Novahux @ Mar 19 2003, 06:04 AM)

This is all too serious now, its about time someone moved it to the comedy section. First the Lord made man in the Garden of Eden. > > > > > Then he said to himself, "There's something he's needin' ". > > > > > After casting about for a suitable pearl, He kept messing around and > > > > > created a girl. > > > > > > > > > > Two beautiful legs, so long and so slender, > > > > > Round, slim, and firm, and ever so tender. > > > > > Two lovely hips to increase his desire, > > > > > And rounded and firm to bring out the fire. > > > > > Two lovely breasts, so full and so proud, > > > > > Commanding his eyes, as he whispers aloud. > > > > > Two lovely arms, just aching to bless you, > > > > > And two loving hands, to soothe and caress you. > > > > > Soft, cascading hair hung down over her shoulder, > > > > > And two dreamy eyes, just to make him grow bolder. Twas made > > > > > for a man, just to make his heart sing. Then he added a mouth. > > > > > > > > > > Ruined the whole fucking thing.

                             

[Rebel-Soul]

QUOTE

If ignorance were grounds for believing in supernatural phenomena, then we might as well have stuck with tribal fetishism and sacrificing virgins to volcanos to appease the fire gods. Simply because we haven't figured out what the origins of the universe are, or because they are simply beyond the reach of our scientific understanding, does not make them automatically divine in source. Example: the universe is run by invisible monkeys that we are unable to perceive, but you see I wrote this whole book about how they talk to me so I know they're there. That is as scientifically valid as your Christian god. For the 101st time, Creationism, no matter how moderate, is an ideological argument based on faith, and only faith. There are no scientific grounds for belief in any particular higher power, nor any to conclusively disprove its existence.

You miss the point entirely... By this i do not mean that God exsists. Christians beleive God exsists by this. but what it really is is a proof that something supernatural or divine. This is how religions spang about. People knew there must be something greater to some a mayan god or gods to you flying invisible monkeys.

This thread is one of the prime examples of primitive man being more intellegent than modern man.

[Potenza]

QUOTE (praisegod @ Mar 19 2003, 07:27 PM)

I would like to point out that in the New Testament, Hell IS mentioned:

I believe in a forgiving God, a good God.

I do not believe in the punisher.

If you believe God is good, how can good mean eternally punishing somebody.

The god in the new testament is a forgiving god.

[ocool19]

gee people i thought this thing would never end lol....religion seem to be nice subject to talk about huh....and why da hell u guys makeing suck a big deal out of this....it seems like modders of XBOX mostly Agnostic People hHAHAH.....i choose agnostic myself....there is no real prove....and no bible does'nt have it nor any other books....and nobody has came back from heaven/hell and said hell yeah its for real or something like that.....

and those religiose people plz keep ur Religion for urself and dont try to PULL People in because i believe everyone has to choose on there own....and theory about "if my parents is that religion" u should be too is fukkking bullcrap....thats all i had to say had to go through 9 page hahah....intresting topic and STOP Pasting that VERSES FROM BIBLE IT WONT HELP TO PROVE ANYTHING!!!

laters

[Fuzzy]

Does anyone actually believe god wrote the torah or anything. Until i have proof of moses or something like that i apologize if there is a god but i cant believe. We have already dissproved heavan in the clouds. Where the hell else could it be (no pun intended but we know hell isnt down there either)

[Fuzzy]

QUOTE (gainpresence @ Mar 19 2003, 06:33 PM)

QUOTE (Fuzzy @ Mar 19 2003, 04:32 PM) Does anyone actually believe god wrote the torah or anything. Until i have proof of moses or something like that i apologize if there is a god but i cant believe. We have already dissproved heavan in the clouds. Where the hell else could it be (no pun intended but we know hell isnt down there either) You apparently don't know much... Everyone knows that Moses was real, so was Jesus... No one thinks that heaven is in the clouds, God created the universe AFTER he created heaven.

sorry been outta hebrew school for a few years and i never was very religious (but i mean how do we know moses saw god, we dont! and how do we know jesus was resurrected, we DONT!)

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (Rebel-Soul @ Mar 19 2003, 08:35 PM)

OMG you guys still got it wrong! Des Cartes did not believe in a god! he was an athiest so to speak. Cogito ergo sum. Please translate and tell me what you think.

Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am.  

Interestingly enough, that is part and parcel of one of Descartes' proofs of God.  He not only wasn't an atheist, but based his entire epistemology (system of thought) around the belief that he had established the existence of God beyond a doubt using only reason rather than empirical arguments.  He was a devout Christian and Catholic, and much of his work was based around the Papal bull saying that God's existence could be rationally proved...he was devoted to figuring out how.

The bulk of his seminal Meditations on First Philosophy is devoted to two massive proofs of God on a rational basis, of which "Cogito Ergo Sum" is a part.  If you really want me to explain them I will...but for now suffice it to say that not only are you wrong about Descartes, you are doubly wrong for making a pretense of familiarity with his work.

In fact, the number of 17th century Enlightenment thinkers that were actual atheists were few in number...offhand, I can only think of Diderot...Keep in mind that before Darwin there were few reasonable grounds for being an atheist, although Diderot did a fascinating purely rational dissection remarkably close to what we know of modern physics and atomic structures.  The rest were devout Christians, with the occasional Deist.

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (praisegod @ Mar 19 2003, 08:58 PM)

have read your articles.   In "The Mammoth lie" , if you assume that all the samples are different mammoths you may say, "ha the creationists are wrong".  I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say they were wrong in this particlular instance.  However, Carbon dating in general is flawed.  Please read: In this quote , it does not use the articles that you dismiss(mammoth, volcano, and the one about the age of quotes).  The CEM article above disproves carbon dating by other means. For the Volcano article I will assume the same as the Mammoth.  That creationists may have been wrong in this particular instance. However for the last article, there is no creationist error.  Just because the creationists' quotes are old doesn't mean they are wrong.  Einstein's theory of relativity E=mc^2 was formulated in the early 1900's.   That doesnt mean that ,"hey, since that theory is old , its wrong!"  The last article of yours has little or no validity.   If I appear to be hostile, I am sorry.   I love you all and will let you come to your own convictions.

The reason I cited the mammoth article was to give you a specific example of the sort of methodology creationists use to actively deceive their followers.  It is not, in fact, an honest mistake; it is done purposefully.  

QUOTE

here is an explanation from : http://www.creatione.../se_carbon.html Subject: Carbon Dating A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty. Cabon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. One the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth. CEM Staff

Not only are there no experimentational references, or even self-references, but also:
1. There is absolutely no evidence for the earth's magnetic field decaying at a constant rate.  In fact, this wholly spurious claim that continues to be used by Creationists despite its obvious flaws has been extensively debunked.

2. I have no idea what "the canopy" means.  Without citation it is meaningless.

3. This pretty much sums up how I feel about this quotes (fromhere):

QUOTE

The creationist fascination with spitting out long lines of out-dated and out-of-context quotes is directly tied with their literalistic Biblical outlook. Since in their interminable arguments with each other over religious doctrines and Biblical interpretations, their usual method of argument is to quote Bible verses at each other, they apparently think that it is a valid scientific argument to quote this or that person as saying this or that, and therefore somehow in this manner invalidate the data and evidence in favor of the evolution of life. The whole strategy is one of "argument from authority"----"X must be true because Mr Y says it’s true". While this method might (or might not) make sense within the context of fundamentalist arguments over which particular interpretation of this or that Bible verse is authoritative, it has no use in science, which depends solely on data and evidence, not on the say-so of this or that prominent scientist. Thus scientists, quite apart from all the distortions and inaccuracies, reject all of the creationists’ "quotes" as irrelevant, no doubt leaving the fundamentalists completely baffled as to why nobody seems to be impressed by all their quotations from authorities.

I think it encapsulates nicely what I have been trying to get across for numerous posts: your argument is ideological and faith based, and has nothing to do with science.  That is fine when it comes to questions no amount of scientific theories will ever likely be able to address due to their very nature, such as "*why* are we here" but is utterly useless when we are talking about *how* we got here.  

QUOTE

However for the last article, there is no creationist error. Just because the creationists' quotes are old doesn't mean they are wrong. Einstein's theory of relativity E=mc^2 was formulated in the early 1900's. That doesnt mean that ,"hey, since that theory is old , its wrong!" The last article of yours has little or no validity.

That is only half-true.  Old scientific statements can be useful, if and ONLY if they have not since been disproved or modified by later findings.  If you don't think it's significant that Creationists overwhelmingly use dated information that has since been replaced by accurate data that says something completely different from what they say, and do so on purpose (you have to go out of your way to find dated science if you are looking through scientific journals...you will usually be referred to the most recent work first), then you need to revise your understanding of scientific method.

QUOTE

If I appear to be hostile, I am sorry. I love you all and will let you come to your own convictions.

You don't have to apologize, and you are a country mile from being rude.  I am not trying to attack your system of beliefs, just trying to make clear that they have *nothing* to do with science.