NationStates Jolt Archive

I sent a letter to the author of BUDDHISM
WORLD RELIGIONS IN THE LIGHT OF GOD’S WORD (http://www.tftw.org/Articles/buddhism.html) to debate some of the points in his article, and this is the responce i got:

Dear Internet Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to access our website.
We hope you will visit it again in the future.

I hope you will also take the time to look at these
two websites that will help you in your search for
truth:

http://www.apologeticspress.org

http://www.christiancourier.com

In His service, John Grubb

Reply to the following message:
> > Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:12:54 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: question about your buddhism paper
> To: tftworld@aol.com
>
Your "facts" on why the bible is right had nothing outside of the bible for evidence for christianity. Proof of something cannot be found inside of itself. You said that jesus had said he was son of god, therefore he was. There is two very large problems with that. 1. He never even existed to say that, and you can't prove that he did if you are trying to deny that and 2. If there is an object, let's say two giant rubber bouncy balls, that never touche or interact with anything else besides themselves, can you say that they are real? You wouldn't be able to see them, for they wouldn't interact with light, you wouldn't be able to feel them, for they wouldn't interact with human bodies, you wouldn't be able to smell them or anything else because they don't interact with anything but themselves. If the only thing they did was bounce against eachother, they wouldn't be real, although they might exist, so that is no proof for the existance of jesus or god. Same goes for when you say the bible is right cause it says it's right. You say it claims to be from god, but god never existed. You say jesus was a real person, and you said you could give many reasons, but you never gave any reasons. Just because the bible exists is not proof enough, it could have very well been a book written by people as fiction, but someone misinterpreted it as fact and made their own religion of it. There are many many contradictions in the bible dispite what you say, as the bible says that god created all creatures, that's one false statement there. There is clear evidence that all organisms have DNA(DeoxyriboNuecleic Acid) and that all things change. I have recently done an expiriment with a group of sedges(no, i am not a scientist, nor do i plan on being one) by planting a few generations of them, and measuring the distance between the DNA of each of them. The result was that the DNA was closest by the ones that had been in the same family of others and that changes in DNA were passed down generation by generation. Over many thousands of years, these differences in DNA build up and eventually create new species. These new organisms obviously weren't created by god. That shows how the bible contradicts with the truth. The large number of things wronge with the bible greatly outnumber the things that you say predicted scientific facts, so it was most likely coinsedense that those happened to be correct. We can number the stars, in the closed universe only a finite amount of objects can exist with stability. The bibles is just a fictitionous collection of stories and lies ment for young children to try to teach morals.

Hooray.

Also, why do all Christians use AOL? Do they enjoy being fed lies?

I'm christian, and I don't use AOL.

Originally posted by Yupaenu
I sent a letter to the author of BUDDHISM
WORLD RELIGIONS IN THE LIGHT OF GOD’S WORD to debate some of the points in his article, and this is the responce i got:

Dear Internet Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to access our website.
We hope you will visit it again in the future.

I hope you will also take the time to look at these
two websites that will help you in your search for
truth:

http://www.apologeticspress.org

http://www.christiancourier.com

In His service, John Grubb

Reply to the following message:
> > Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:12:54 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: question about your buddhism paper
> To: tftworld@aol.com
>
Your "facts" on why the bible is right had nothing outside of the bible for evidence for christianity. Proof of something cannot be found inside of itself. You said that jesus had said he was son of god, therefore he was. There is two very large problems with that. 1. He never even existed to say that, and you can't prove that he did if you are trying to deny that and 2. If there is an object, let's say two giant rubber bouncy balls, that never touche or interact with anything else besides themselves, can you say that they are real? You wouldn't be able to see them, for they wouldn't interact with light, you wouldn't be able to feel them, for they wouldn't interact with human bodies, you wouldn't be able to smell them or anything else because they don't interact with anything but themselves. If the only thing they did was bounce against eachother, they wouldn't be real, although they might exist, so that is no proof for the existance of jesus or god. Same goes for when you say the bible is right cause it says it's right. You say it claims to be from god, but god never existed. You say jesus was a real person, and you said you could give many reasons, but you never gave any reasons. Just because the bible exists is not proof enough, it could have very well been a book written by people as fiction, but someone misinterpreted it as fact and made their own religion of it. There are many many contradictions in the bible dispite what you say, as the bible says that god created all creatures, that's one false statement there. There is clear evidence that all organisms have DNA(DeoxyriboNuecleic Acid) and that all things change. I have recently done an expiriment with a group of sedges(no, i am not a scientist, nor do i plan on being one) by planting a few generations of them, and measuring the distance between the DNA of each of them. The result was that the DNA was closest by the ones that had been in the same family of others and that changes in DNA were passed down generation by generation. Over many thousands of years, these differences in DNA build up and eventually create new species. These new organisms obviously weren't created by god. That shows how the bible contradicts with the truth. The large number of things wronge with the bible greatly outnumber the things that you say predicted scientific facts, so it was most likely coinsedense that those happened to be correct. We can number the stars, in the closed universe only a finite amount of objects can exist with stability. The bibles is just a fictitionous collection of stories and lies ment for young children to try to teach morals.

I am not a religious man by any means, but much of the bible is based on faith, believing what you can't always see. Christians believe that God created DNA, so that's justification enough form them. You should not try to change peoples beliefs, let bygons be bygons.

In point of fact, there has been some debate recently about whether or not the universe is closed. Current scientific knowledge can only guess whether the universe is expanding or not. (If you don't believe me, read some Dr. Hawking)
Aside from that one minor point, I have nothing else to say because both sides of this debate use so many circular arguments that I get nauseated (e.g. Jesus couldn't say he was the son of god because he never existed to say it. The Bilbe is right because it says it is right).

Okay, you put your faith in science, not a problem.

Really, there's no need to get nasty on people who do believe in ideals of religion. I believe that God created the universe, and that everything around us, gravity, phsyics, chemicals, DNA, are his tools.

I don't follow the Bible to the letter, but I think there is something out there, and I believe in the good values that religion can bring people. (ie, love thy neighbor)

In point of fact, there has been some debate recently about whether or not the universe is closed. Current scientific knowledge can only guess whether the universe is expanding or not. (If you don't believe me, read some Dr. Hawking)
Aside from that one minor point, I have nothing else to say because both sides of this debate use so many circular arguments that I get nauseated (e.g. Jesus couldn't say he was the son of god because he never existed to say it. The Bilbe is right because it says it is right).

i've read some of his books, they're quite good.

EDIT: i was only using the closed universe theory cause that's a possibility of what could be. And cause i think i have proof against an open universe; in an open universe there must be infinite different types of objects, and infinite of each of these objects. one of these objects MUST be a rock that extends forever in all directions. if it extends forever in all directions, and there is infinite of them, that would be impossible.

Wait you wrote to a buddhist? Buddhism isn't a religion since it has no Gods and can be of different faiths at the same time. Buddhism is the belief that want causes suffering and buddha himself said he wasnt a god and not to worship him (some do the opposite) Any way there is outstanding proof Jesus existed. He had a brother named Thomas the Lesser who wrote the fifth gospel which isnt in the bible and there are accounts of Jesus' child hood (you might not want to read it).

Remember, a you cannot prove that something did not or does not exist.

Wait you wrote to a buddhist?

i wrote to a christian, i am a buddhist, though an extremely horrible one

Wait you wrote to a buddhist? Buddhism isn't a religion since it has no Gods and can be of different faiths at the same time. Buddhism is the belief that want causes suffering and buddha himself said he wasnt a god and not to worship him (some do the opposite) Any way there is outstanding proof Jesus existed. He had a brother named Thomas the Lesser who wrote the fifth gospel which isnt in the bible and there are accounts of Jesus' child hood (you might not want to read it).
millions of buddhists might be shocked to find out that they have no religion

The bibles is just a fictitionous collection of stories and lies ment for young children to try to teach morals.

for the most part correct, but there was a person called Jesus he really existed its just he wasnt the son of god, he himself never claimed to be, his deification was only decided upon some 300 years later at the first meeting of Roman Catholic cardinals. I suspect much of what jesus was supposed to have said is in fact grossly changed, I mean just look at modern newspapers, they warp stuff people said only days after they said it image what 2000 years and a load of power hungry italians did to what jesus said.

Muslims believe that Jesus was just one prophet in a long line which started with Adam went through all the usualy old testiment suspects like abraham and david and final ended with Muhammud (sp)

Come now, people. Religon is a matter of opinion and faith. Some people believe, some don't. Can't we all just respect that we all believe different things?

Come now, people. Religon is a matter of opinion and faith. Some people believe, some don't. Can't we all just respect that we all believe different things?

no, cause some of it's wronge, and people shouldn't believe false things, slows the whole down.

no, cause some of it's wronge, and people shouldn't believe false things, slows the whole down.
Such as us believing that you were able to sequence DNA on your own?

no, cause some of it's wronge, and people shouldn't believe false things, slows the whole down.


How do you know Christianity is wrong. Can you prove god does not exist?

Such as us believing that you were able to sequence DNA on your own?

i said beleiveing in false things. and i don't believe in that, i except that it's true.

This could have been a good argument. Unfortunately, it wasn't. What good points you made were outweighed by some simply outstandingly ignorant statements and an unwillingness to consider points of view other than your own. However, I feel compelled to take a look at what you said.

Your "facts" on why the bible is right had nothing outside of the bible for evidence for christianity. Proof of something cannot be found inside of itself. You said that jesus had said he was son of god, therefore he was.
You have identified a circular argument. At this point, it looked hopeful.

There is two very large problems with that. 1. He never even existed to say that, and you can't prove that he did if you are trying to deny that
While it can't be proved, the existance of many texts and, indeed, the Christian religion makes it likely to the point of certainty that he did. What is in dispute is whether or not he was/is the Son of God, whether he performed the miracles, and whether they can be rationalised, and whether he rose from the dead.

and 2. If there is an object, let's say two giant rubber bouncy balls, that never touche or interact with anything else besides themselves, can you say that they are real? You wouldn't be able to see them, for they wouldn't interact with light, you wouldn't be able to feel them, for they wouldn't interact with human bodies, you wouldn't be able to smell them or anything else because they don't interact with anything but themselves. If the only thing they did was bounce against eachother, they wouldn't be real, although they might exist, so that is no proof for the existance of jesus or god. [Quote=Yupaenu]
This is all very well and good, although I'd suggest that you proofread yourself for coherency; however, Christians believe that Jesus and God do not exist interacting with nothing but each other- we believe that they also interact with us, and the world in general. It's called the Holy Spirit. They're called answers to prayers.

[Quote=Yupaenu]Same goes for when you say the bible is right cause it says it's right. You say it claims to be from god, but god never existed.
And where is your evidence that God does not exist? You're criticising them for a lack of evidence.

You say jesus was a real person, and you said you could give many reasons, but you never gave any reasons. Just because the bible exists is not proof enough, it could have very well been a book written by people as fiction, but someone misinterpreted it as fact and made their own religion of it.
So Paul just thought 'I know, I'll write a letter to Philemon about a slave that doesn't exist, referring to a religion that's false! That would be fun!'? The idea of fiction didn't really exist at that time in history in the same way that it does now: the closest you'll get is in plays and myths: people didn't write novels. I would refer you to the book of Acts, which I would presume can be supported with external historical evidence, but I expect that you'd accuse me of circular arguments. I think that it can be said fairly definitively that if the Christian religion was founded by a single person, that person was Jesus of Nazareth and not a misguided, anachronistic novellist.

There are many many contradictions in the bible dispite what you say,
It's spelt despite. And why couldn't you have stopped there? You would have had a point! There are contradictions in the Bible (2 Sam. 24:1 vs 1 Chron. 21:1 etc)! But you had to go on and make this cretinous point about Creationalism vs Darwinism, which is an entirely separate issue!

as the bible says that god created all creatures, that's one false statement there. There is clear evidence that all organisms have DNA(DeoxyriboNuecleic Acid) and that all things change. I have recently done an expiriment with a group of sedges(no, i am not a scientist, nor do i plan on being one) by planting a few generations of them, and measuring the distance between the DNA of each of them. The result was that the DNA was closest by the ones that had been in the same family of others and that changes in DNA were passed down generation by generation. Over many thousands of years, these differences in DNA build up and eventually create new species. These new organisms obviously weren't created by god.
Umm, well, actually, they could have been. Because the great thing about God is that he controls everything, including nature. And that means that, if he wants to create a new species, he can fiddle around with the DNA and do that. Just because something has been explained by science does not mean that God is not involved: God created science, and biology, and DNA. Although there are many Christians who do dispute evolutionary theory (which doesn't actually happen in the way that you said it did- I'll refer you to any biology teacher, or any GCSE biology student, for that matter), there are also many, such as myself, who find it easily reconciled with Biblical teaching about God as Creator.

That shows how the bible contradicts with the truth. The large number of things wronge with the bible greatly outnumber the things that you say predicted scientific facts, so it was most likely coinsedense that those happened to be correct. We can number the stars, in the closed universe only a finite amount of objects can exist with stability. So you've identified one thing, which isn't even a decent argument, and that's a 'large number of things'? The aim of the Bible isn't to 'predict scientific facts' but to educate people spiritually, which the actual specifics of science are often absent- next time you find a bilingual dictionary that includes a list of the capital cities of the world, let me know. I can't find the Bible verse relating to your point about numbering the stars, but I would presume that it was talking symbolically; the Bible does that quite a lot. You'd notice it if you were to read Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel and a few others.

The bibles is just a fictitionous collection of stories and lies ment for young children to try to teach morals.
As well as writing in appalling English here (fictitinous???), you've said absolutely nothing at any point to substantiate this. When was the last time you came across a small child that was able to understand the book of Revelation? I can't understand the book of Revelation. The sensual Song of Solomon, is another thing that would almost certainly pass over the heads of small children. And advice about what to do widows in the church? I was under the impression that the marriage of small children was frowned upon. The Bible does not merely contain morals: John 3:16, the first verse that many Christians commit to memory, is purely theological. There would be no point to passages such as John 1:1-18, or, indeed, any of the 150 Psalms, which contain content that is illuminating about God, but are distinctly lacking in moralistic content.

Please, before you make such bold, sweeping statements in future, find out what you're talking about. There's actually quite a lot to debate when considering religious texts, and their value in proving the existence of God- you have identified very little of it.

i said beleiveing in false things. and i don't believe in that, i except that it's true.
You said you did an experiment to measure the difference in DNA between generations of "sedges." Did you make that up or did you perform the experiment?

How do you know Christianity is wrong. Can you prove god does not exist?

nothing can be proven, and nothing is real until it is proven. since nothing can be proven, god isn't real. neither does anything else unfortunantly. something may exist, but we can't prove it's real.

nothing can be proven, and nothing is real until it is proven. since nothing can be proven, god isn't real. neither does anything else unfortunantly. something may exist, but we can't prove it's real.
Nor can you disprove anything. But we live in a world where 99% certainty is good enough. This chair I'm sitting in is real. If it wasn't, I'd fall to the ground.

You said you did an experiment to measure the difference in DNA between generations of "sedges." Did you make that up or did you perform the experiment?

i did actually do the expiriment, part of my high school 3 year science project, now i'm looking to write an article on it and hopefully get it accepted into a scientific journal.

i did actually do the expiriment, part of my high school 3 year science project, now i'm looking to write an article on it and hopefully get it accepted into a scientific journal.
Then explain how you sequenced in. Whose lab did you use? Was there already an entry in the BLAST database? How did you measure genetic seperation? What was the name of the species you used?

nothing can be proven, and nothing is real until it is proven. since nothing can be proven, god isn't real. neither does anything else unfortunantly. something may exist, but we can't prove it's real.

To Quote Voltare, "I think, therefore, I am".

I know I exist, therefore, something exists.

I have just proven something. There.

no, cause some of it's wronge, and people shouldn't believe false things, slows the whole down.

... but there are many things wrong in science.. yet we belive them... there is no general concsesus that global warming is occuring in any significant level.. many sceintist belive it is a natural occurance and we cant effect it.. Others argue it is our doom... many belive both sides... both very may well be wrong.. until recently we belived nothing can survive entering a blackhole.. but then we found molecules actually come out of a blackhole.. in science.. nothing is ever "certain"... So should we belive in Sceince ?

And to the argument that Jesus never existed... infact historians have concluded that Jesus the man in fact did exist... pointing to countless historical evidence from Roman documents to ancient writings from the region... We are just as much sure that Jesus existed as Mohammad.. or even Julius Ceasar.

and how obsured to suggest simply because your sense can't identifiy something it does not exist... Can you see an oygen molecule ? even feel it ? no... yet we know it exists. In fact how many things in science have we never seen or witnessed with our own sense, yet know will great almost certain probablity those things exist. There simply is no logic to this whole argument, and you probably made this fellow feel very good about what he was preaching (weather it be right or wrong)

i do think that ppl who believe in the factual truth of the bible in its entirety are either stupid or wrong. its self contradictory for a start and the old testament is all in all horrible. Christians (like me... maybe) who believe that all one needs to do to be a christian is love god. in my opinion have som form of spirituality. and love thy neighbour. whats wrong with that? also i do believe that there is a large amount of good useful and beautiful content in the bible and it should be respected at the very least as a literary masterpeice or an invaluable historical text. As for proving that god exists, i believe that there is much evidence for this. Morality, teliology, cosmology. text book.

in any rate i believe that it is healthy to believe that i am not the biggest thing here. theres something else. and i respect it.

This could have been a good argument. Unfortunately, it wasn't. What good points you made were outweighed by some simply outstandingly ignorant statements and an unwillingness to consider points of view other than your own. However, I feel compelled to take a look at what you said.

This is all very well and good, although I'd suggest that you proofread yourself for coherency

And where is your evidence that God does not exist? You're criticising them for a lack of evidence.

It's spelt despite. And why couldn't you have stopped there? You would have had a point! There are contradictions in the Bible (2 Sam. 24:1 vs 1 Chron. 21:1 etc)! But you had to go on and make this cretinous point about Creationalism vs Darwinism, which is an entirely separate issue!

The aim of the Bible isn't to 'predict scientific facts' but to educate people spiritually, which the actual specifics of science are often absent- next time you find a bilingual dictionary that includes a list of the capital cities of the world, let me know. I can't find the Bible verse relating to your point about numbering the stars, but I would presume that it was talking symbolically; the Bible does that quite a lot. You'd notice it if you were to read Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel and a few others.

As well as writing in appalling English here (fictitinous???),

Please, before you make such bold, sweeping statements in future, find out what you're talking about. There's actually quite a lot to debate when considering religious texts, and their value in proving the existence of God- you have identified very little of it.

(i removed allot of the text to make it smaller)
i actually like people critizing what i say like that, and i'm not being sarcastic. it helps me improve my arguement, and my english. i'm native to yopenese, that's why i'm not so good at english. allot of the things i was refering to were what they had said in the article, like about the stars and predicting scientific facts. i didn't really mean the last statement as litteral, i was just trying to say that it isn't as important as they say. i'm not shure if i wrote that right, but here's how i thought evolution worked-small mutations in DNA are inherited by the offspring, and over time these changes build up, and are passed down through generations until enough changes are there to make it considered another species. changes don't happen in the lifetime of an organism. and changes can be good or bad, it's random.

Gee, another Christians are stupid and wrong thread. *yawn* The thing that troubles me the most is the complete williness of people to create these threads and agree with them when if the same thing was done about Muslims or Buddists those same people would scream "Youy ignorant intolarant pig!!!"

In other words it is exceptable to attack Christians but other religions must be respected. And people wonder why many Christians in the US are so paranoid. They feel under seige. Now you may say, "Under seige!? That's rediculous! Stupid ignorant Christians!" but it is exactly what they feel and so they tend to react strongly to anything perceived to attack the faith.

At least a lot of the posts are well thought out and argued, not just attacks.

Then explain how you sequenced in. Whose lab did you use? Was there already an entry in the BLAST database? How did you measure genetic seperation? What was the name of the species you used?

i used the RAPD proscess to determine the differences in DNA, i don't think there was an entry in the blast database(not shure what that is), the name of the species was Cyperus esculentus

In fact, Jesus really existed. I can understand some people wouldn't believe in the Bible, but there's not only the holy book that mentions Jesus. Many historians (romans and syrians I think) mentionned Jesus in their writings. But nothing about religion. They said he was a leader that caused trouble in Galilea. Historical facts. So, believe he was God's son or not, maybe that man wasn't, it's your choice, but you can't say he never existed.

And you say that what you can't see and touch doesn't exist? ABSOLUTELY right dude! There is no light, air, intelligence, love, energy, electricity, wind, universe, poverty, liberty. Poor little thing. If you don't believe in anything, just shoot yourself, you're already lost anyway. Is the only logical things the ones you can touch? Then your life ain't logical! Think about it...

And you say the Bible contradicts with itself? It's normal. Everything contradicts with itself sometime or another. You do. You believe in DNA, but you never saw such. Why do you believe in that? Maybe someone who calls himself a scientist just invented that and made the whole world believe it. A big conspiration by all scientists. Why not? After all, for you, the Bible is a big conspiration. If science is your only religion, boy your life must be so dull!

I believe in God, and Jesus. I believe that animals evolve. I'm a christian, but I learned during my life to take some and let go some. There is no absolute truth, science ain't truth, religion ain't truth. Some things we can explain, some not. The Bible is a big story, yeah. In every related story, there are things that may not seem to be true, that doesn't mean all the story is false. Churches interpret their holy books the way they want. It's only an interpretation!

It's your choice to believe or not. But please be accurate on facts (Jesus never existed!), listen to others (we never give any reason cause you don't listen to what we have to say!) and finally, come with good arguments, for God sake! ;)

Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, we are not stupid cause we believe in something different. We are stupid cause we're intolerent faced to others. Period.

i used the RAPD proscess to determine the differences in DNA, i don't think there was an entry in the blast database(not shure what that is), the name of the species was Cyperus esculentus
RAPD creates DNA, it doesn't sequence it.

(i removed allot of the text to make it smaller)
i actually like people critizing what i say like that, and i'm not being sarcastic. it helps me improve my arguement, and my english. i'm native to yopenese, that's why i'm not so good at english. allot of the things i was refering to were what they had said in the article, like about the stars and predicting scientific facts. i didn't really mean the last statement as litteral, i was just trying to say that it isn't as important as they say. i'm not shure if i wrote that right, but here's how i thought evolution worked-small mutations in DNA are inherited by the offspring, and over time these changes build up, and are passed down through generations until enough changes are there to make it considered another species. changes don't happen in the lifetime of an organism. and changes can be good or bad, it's random.

I'm sorry for all the snide comments about the language- I shouldn't have made those. But I was annoyed.
You may not have meant the last statement to be literal, but it was simply incorrect- the Bible was not written for small children.
You missed out a rather important factor in your description of evolution- the mutations that make organisms more likely to survive to reproduce and pass on their genes are those that contribute to evolution. These may be entirely revolutionary, such as the development of a photosensitive cell, or they may be small. Other changes simply pass out of the species, as or do not multiply with in the species, as they make the individual less likely to survive to reproduce and pass their genes on to their offspring, or do not affect the individual's chance of survival to reproduction. You were broadly right.

But those were not the most important parts of my case. Logically and theologically, I still have huge problems with your argument.

And it's spelt 'sure'.

(i removed allot of the text to make it smaller)
i actually like people critizing what i say like that, and i'm not being sarcastic. it helps me improve my arguement, and my english. i'm native to yopenese, that's why i'm not so good at english. allot of the things i was refering to were what they had said in the article, like about the stars and predicting scientific facts. i didn't really mean the last statement as litteral, i was just trying to say that it isn't as important as they say. i'm not shure if i wrote that right, but here's how i thought evolution worked-small mutations in DNA are inherited by the offspring, and over time these changes build up, and are passed down through generations until enough changes are there to make it considered another species. changes don't happen in the lifetime of an organism. and changes can be good or bad, it's random.

Often, mutations occur only in one generation and are not hereditary. To form a brand new species would require DNA to be added to existing DNA, which can't happen on its own. As humans we have over 3 billion genes, and I find it quite hard to believe that every one of those genes just "popped up" out of nowhere. If evolution did indeed occur, then there msut have been something behind it, IE a deity/ higher being. And how did the first living things form? Non-living things cannot produce something that is living.

You should read the Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. It explains that Jesus must have been alive (I think everyone agrees on this) and that he did claim to be God, and believed that he was God with all his mind. He was asked, point blank by the Jewish if he believed he was God, and he said yes, knowing that he faced death if he told them he was. And, why would he lie if he thoughr he would die? Think about it: if someone holds a gun to your head, and tells you to tell the truth about something you're lying about, wouldn't you tell the truth to save your life?

In fact, Jesus really existed. I can understand some people wouldn't believe in the Bible, but there's not only the holy book that mentions Jesus. Many historians (romans and syrians I think) mentionned Jesus in their writings. But nothing about religion. They said he was a leader that caused trouble in Galilea. Historical facts. So, believe he was God's son or not, maybe that man wasn't, it's your choice, but you can't say he never existed.

And you say that what you can't see and touch doesn't exist? ABSOLUTELY right dude! There is no light, air, intelligence, love, energy, electricity, wind, universe, poverty, liberty. Poor little thing. If you don't believe in anything, just shoot yourself, you're already lost anyway. Is the only logical things the ones you can touch? Then your life ain't logical! Think about it...

And you say the Bible contradicts with itself? It's normal. Everything contradicts with itself sometime or another. You do. You believe in DNA, but you never saw such. Why do you believe in that? Maybe someone who calls himself a scientist just invented that and made the whole world believe it. A big conspiration by all scientists. Why not? After all, for you, the Bible is a big conspiration. If science is your only religion, boy your life must be so dull!

I believe in God, and Jesus. I believe that animals evolve. I'm a christian, but I learned during my life to take some and let go some. There is no absolute truth, science ain't truth, religion ain't truth. Some things we can explain, some not. The Bible is a big story, yeah. In every related story, there are things that may not seem to be true, that doesn't mean all the story is false. Churches interpret their holy books the way they want. It's only an interpretation!

It's your choice to believe or not. But please be accurate on facts (Jesus never existed!), listen to others (we never give any reason cause you don't listen to what we have to say!) and finally, come with good arguments, for God sake! ;)

Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, we are not stupid cause we believe in something different. We are stupid cause we're intolerent faced to others. Period.

Wow. Good post.

In fact, Jesus really existed. I can understand some people wouldn't believe in the Bible, but there's not only the holy book that mentions Jesus. Many historians (romans and syrians I think) mentionned Jesus in their writings. But nothing about religion. They said he was a leader that caused trouble in Galilea. Historical facts. So, believe he was God's son or not, maybe that man wasn't, it's your choice, but you can't say he never existed.

And you say that what you can't see and touch doesn't exist? ABSOLUTELY right dude! There is no light, air, intelligence, love, energy, electricity, wind, universe, poverty, liberty. Poor little thing. If you don't believe in anything, just shoot yourself, you're already lost anyway. Is the only logical things the ones you can touch? Then your life ain't logical! Think about it...

And you say the Bible contradicts with itself? It's normal. Everything contradicts with itself sometime or another. You do. You believe in DNA, but you never saw such. Why do you believe in that? Maybe someone who calls himself a scientist just invented that and made the whole world believe it. A big conspiration by all scientists. Why not? After all, for you, the Bible is a big conspiration. If science is your only religion, boy your life must be so dull!

I believe in God, and Jesus. I believe that animals evolve. I'm a christian, but I learned during my life to take some and let go some. There is no absolute truth, science ain't truth, religion ain't truth. Some things we can explain, some not. The Bible is a big story, yeah. In every related story, there are things that may not seem to be true, that doesn't mean all the story is false. Churches interpret their holy books the way they want. It's only an interpretation!

It's your choice to believe or not. But please be accurate on facts (Jesus never existed!), listen to others (we never give any reason cause you don't listen to what we have to say!) and finally, come with good arguments, for God sake! ;)

Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, we are not stupid cause we believe in something different. We are stupid cause we're intolerent faced to others. Period.

i never said i believe in science either. cause it's not one entire thing, it's full of a bunch of different scientifical set of beliefs, of different theories opposite eachother. and you said "we never give any reasone cause you don't listen to what we have to say!" well, i'm listening to you now aren't i? and you can see DNA. i haven't actually seen it, but i've seen how it interacts during electrophoresis. out of those things you listed, light, air, universe, energy, electricity, and wind do exist. the rest are concepts about what does exist. and even if jesus did exist, he didn't exist as the same person as the church makes them to be.

i never said i believe in science either. cause it's not one entire thing, it's full of a bunch of different scientifical set of beliefs, of different theories opposite eachother. and you said "we never give any reasone cause you don't listen to what we have to say!" well, i'm listening to you now aren't i? and you can see DNA. i haven't actually seen it, but i've seen how it interacts during electrophoresis. out of those things you listed, light, air, universe, energy, electricity, and wind do exist. the rest are concepts about what does exist. and even if jesus did exist, he didn't exist as the same person as the church makes them to be.

Go on, prove this.

RAPD creates DNA, it doesn't sequence it.

i don't know the names of the equipment, as i wasn't the one that measured the DNA, but i was there while they did it, i was just the one who raised the plants and organized the data. why is it that they took it out of the filter and put in a machine that changed the heat very quickly from hot and low temperature and when they took the DNA out, it was still there. that's what we measured.

Go on, prove this.

the church says that he was son of god. he couldn't have been since god doesn't exist(or, alteast isn't real)

i don't know the names of the equipment, as i wasn't the one that measured the DNA, but i was there while they did it, i was just the one who raised the plants and organized the data. why is it that they took it out of the filter and put in a machine that changed the heat very quickly from hot and low temperature and when they took the DNA out, it was still there. that's what we measured.
The hot/cold process is polymerization. It doesn't sequence the DNA. You don't know what you're talking about, because as you said someone did the experiment for you.

the church says that he was son of god. he couldn't have been since god doesn't exist(or, alteast isn't real)

Your argument holds no water at all. Go on, prove that God does not exist.

Most people who criticize the Bible have never read it, and I mean sat down and read the whole thing. It's a very complex book.

The Gospels read like a reporter or an eye-witness account. No myth or legend I've read sounds anything like it. If Jesus was real and said the things the gospels say he did, then he wasn't a great moral teacher. He was either the Son of God or a lunatic. He repeatedly declared who he was. There is the argument that the miraculous and declarations of divinity were added in later but I doubt it mostly because Jesus wouldn't have done enough in that case to merit being remembered. If there was some plot to form a new Judaic religion why not pick a more notable historic figure like Judas Maccabeus and write more divinity in?

Often, mutations occur only in one generation and are not hereditary. To form a brand new species would require DNA to be added to existing DNA, which can't happen on its own. As humans we have over 3 billion genes, and I find it quite hard to believe that every one of those genes just "popped up" out of nowhere. If evolution did indeed occur, then there msut have been something behind it, IE a deity/ higher being. And how did the first living things form? Non-living things cannot produce something that is living.

You should read the Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. It explains that Jesus must have been alive (I think everyone agrees on this) and that he did claim to be God, and believed that he was God with all his mind. He was asked, point blank by the Jewish if he believed he was God, and he said yes, knowing that he faced death if he told them he was. And, why would he lie if he thoughr he would die? Think about it: if someone holds a gun to your head, and tells you to tell the truth about something you're lying about, wouldn't you tell the truth to save your life?

i don't know the truth, so i couldn't tell it to save my life. and that is the truth, heheh :) . adding an extra gene is a mutation. and chemical reactions can be from non-living matter, and life is just a huge bunch of chemical reactions, so why can't life arrive from non-life?

the church says that he was son of god. he couldn't have been since god doesn't exist(or, alteast isn't real)
God doesn't exist because he doesn't exist? Replace the "n't" with "". You have the creationist argument. Stop being hypocritical.

i don't know the truth, so i couldn't tell it to save my life. and that is the truth, heheh :) . adding an extra gene is a mutation. and chemical reactions can be from non-living matter, and life is just a huge bunch of chemical reactions, so why can't life arrive from non-life?
Because you can't generate order spontaneously. Entropy and all that.

i don't know the truth, so i couldn't tell it to save my life. and that is the truth, heheh :) . adding an extra gene is a mutation. and chemical reactions can be from non-living matter, and life is just a huge bunch of chemical reactions, so why can't life arrive from non-life?

Non living things can't reproduce. While a mutation is an extra gene, it's just a duplicate of a gene already in the body. I said new genetic material, not existing material.

Your argument holds no water at all. Go on, prove that God does not exist.

if you were reading this thread, i already said why. i'll say it again here then. if you want me to give a different reasone then say so. nothing can be proven, and nothing is real until it is proven. since nothing can be proven, god isn't real

if you were reading this thread, i already said why. i'll say it again here then. if you want me to give a different reasone then say so. nothing can be proven, and nothing is real until it is proven. since nothing can be proven, god isn't real
Reality exists apart from perception. Something is real or unreal whether or not you prove it, whether or not you disprove. Physics trumps metaphysics. I can run a million tests that say the density of water 2 g/ml. That doesn't change the reality.

The hot/cold process is polymerization. It doesn't sequence the DNA. You don't know what you're talking about, because as you said someone did the experiment for you.

all they did was measure the difference between each specimen's DNA, i grew them and organized the data. they did the biggest part though i guess. but that's what they said to do to find the separation in DNA in my class.

Reality exists apart from perception. Something is real or unreal whether or not you prove it, whether or not you disprove. Physics trumps metaphysics. I can run a million tests that say the density of water 2 g/ml. That doesn't change the reality.

something is only really if you can prove it. it exists nomatter what.

all they did was measure the difference between each specimen's DNA, i grew them and organized the data. they did the biggest part though i guess. but that's what they said to do to find the separation in DNA in my class.
How did you measure seperation? What data did you use to get results?

something is only really if you can prove it. it exists nomatter what.
Existence and reality are interchangable.

Non living things can't reproduce. While a mutation is an extra gene, it's just a duplicate of a gene already in the body. I said new genetic material, not existing material.

if the gene is duplicated, one of those two genes can later be mutated.

Religion will eat us all alive. Think about it, how much better would we be if there weren't religions? I mean, we can beleive, but then shut the hell up. That's why we're (US) getting attacked by The Terrorists, because of religion! It's going to cause the end of the damn world.

Religion will eat us all alive. Think about it, how much better would we be if there weren't religions? I mean, we can beleive, but then shut the hell up. That's why we're (US) getting attacked by The Terrorists, because of religion! It's going to cause the end of the damn world.
So religion started both World Wars then? I thought it was man's capacity for evil that was destroying us, but shucks if it wasn't God all along.

why are God and DNA mutually exclusive?

If in Genesis, God would have told Moses to write down,

"4.5 billion years ago..." and explained Big Bang, creation of Earth, evolution of organisms up to man, it would have made no sense. This is thousands of years ago. The Bible is merely the best explanation for the time it was written, and shouldnt be taken literally. But that doesnt mean there is no God. The odds of the mutations happening to lead to homo sapiens is really unlikely. That can be attributed to God, that he guided the mutations, and less likely events happened, so in that way 'created' man

nothing can be proven, and nothing is real until it is proven. since nothing can be proven, god isn't real. neither does anything else unfortunantly. something may exist, but we can't prove it's real.

That's the stupidest thing Ive ever read. By your horrible assumption, nothing exists in reality. Congratulations.

if you were reading this thread, i already said why. i'll say it again here then. if you want me to give a different reasone then say so. nothing can be proven, and nothing is real until it is proven. since nothing can be proven, god isn't real

By the same logic, I could say that you don't exist.

So if nothing exists, then God doesn't exist either. But if you can't prove the existence of anything, then how can you disprove it? :confused:

Yupaenu, I guess in other words, we can't make you agree that a God exists unless a miracle from heaven suddenly appear, like a angel. :)

However Jesus did existed, there are some documents and stuff dated back to that century concerning his cruxification.

But still that doesn't mean God doesn't or does exist.

I'm suddenly reminded of my Statistical inferences. Where unproven things have a 50% chance of being right.

In terms of recognizing the existence of God we are as if Columbus, believing in a existence of God, but who knows, the rest of the world could have been right, and Columbus would have just fall off the edge of the world and died.

lol.. You know what.. I'm waiting for someone to post

"You can't see me, how do you know I exist". :D

nothing can be proven (wrong),
and nothing is real until it is proven (wrong).
since nothing can be proven, god isn't real (wrong)

Either you don't know the meaning of "real", "nothing", and "proven", or you need to work on your logic and reasoning skills.

Or maybe the words you write down don't match up with what's going on in your head.

Either way, it's a problem that needs to be fixed.