NationStates Jolt Archive

But how do we know that the gospels written by Mary Magdalene weren't in the original bible and then taken out. The pope then labeled her a prostitute to further make the case that she wasn't the wife or girlfriend of Jesus to either make a case about the unimportance of women to society, or to cover something else up (child, etc).

In addition, the New Testament only refers to things in the Bible, non-canonical texts of the same time about the same thing like the gnostic gospels etc. are not part of the New Testament

And they are not part of the New Testament because the Church leaders ordered them removed... they used to be cannon, until the Clergy decreed otherwise.


Lots of this thread deals with the KJV of the Bible. The KJV is ( or was at one point) in the Guiness Book or World Records for the most translation errors in a single work.

I've also pointed out common and very basic errors in the most commonly used American Catholic Bible. I cited the KJV as a salient example, not as the only occurance.


Also much of the Bible-haters cite the turning of Mary Maagdalene in the prostitute as an example of women hating in the early church. However, she was never considered to be the prostitute until a pope in thee Middle Ages ( can't remmber his name) mentioned it in his Easter homily.This happened well after the making of the Bible so the two are unrelated.
I am not a Bible-hater. I love the Bible and think it can provide wisdom, I just hate and abhor the mutilation that has been performed on it over the last 2000 years.

If I recall correctly, the Catholic Church did not officially break the link between Mary Magdelene and the prostitute until 1976! And even then they obviously did it pretty quietly, since not three days ago I heard Mary Magdelene referred to as 'a fallen woman' on the UK's most watched programme (EastEnders).

The only reason that the Gnostic and Coptic texts have not been restored to their rightful original place (That's in the New Testament!) is because the Church would have to admit that for the last fifteen centuries they've been operating in ignorance of the fact that their spiritual ancestors removed large and insightful pieces of text from their holy book!

The NT is only Cannon in its current form because those with something to loose say it is.

But how do we know that the gospels written by Mary Magdalene weren't in the original bible and then taken out. The pope then labeled her a prostitute to further make the case that she wasn't the wife or girlfriend of Jesus to either make a case about the unimportance of women to society, or to cover something else up (child, etc).

The relationship theory (Made popular by Dan Brown's infamous work of fiction) has some basis in fact, but nothing conclusive to my eye.

Relevant facts from recovered documents:

Mary was the one referred to as the unidentified 'Beloved Disciple' in the 'official' (Read: Edited!) New Testament.

Jesus often kissed Mary on an unknown part of her body (Thought to be either forehead or lips, but the only surviving copy of this page is damaged, for some other pages, as many as three copies exist!).

Mary was seen to be the most favoured of the Disciples, to the extent that some others became jelous, until Jesus calmed their fears.

That's about all I can recall offhand. Speculation about a relationship is just that, speculation, not fact like the ones I've presented in my threads here.

I'm inclined to think that the so-called Gnostic texts were removed from the NT (around the mid 5th century according to Church records) are both due to the higher profile of Women in these works (The Church was male dominated by this time) and also due to the fact that the Gnostic texts attempt to come to an understanding of what philosophical ramifications the existance of a Trinity rather than a singular Deity had upon their belief system. (Questioning the nature of one's faith did not fit with Church docterine by this time)

PS atheism doesn`t logically make sense, thats why so few of the smartest people in the world believe it
Ha! You opened a can of worms with this one. Check out the following link:

Negative Correllation Between Intelligence and Religiosity (http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html)

Some excerpts, by date:

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

And now for your claim that "so few of the smartest people in the world believe it (atheism)":

5. Francis Bello, 1954
Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

According to Nature 394:313, a recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.

And I'll leave you with the following graph that uses national population data to examine the link between IQ and religiosity. The raw data used to create this graph can be found here (http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001523.html).

http://w-uh.com/images/IQ_vs_religion.gif

Enjoy.

The relationship theory (Made popular by Dan Brown's infamous work of fiction) has some basis in fact, but nothing conclusive to my eye.
You know... quoting some obscure reference doens't make your point more valid.

Sorry, but I fail to see how Atheism can be good or bad.

Or perhaps it's a trick question? Because if it's whether I think sense is preferable to nonsense, I prefer the former. So sure, Atheism is great, if compared to religion. On it's own, it just is. It has no inherrent value.

I do tend to think less of religious people. I try not to, but it's hard. I have a couple of religious friends. No christian ones, but still religious. I seriously think it's some great kid stories, but I have a damn hard time comprehending why people take it seriously. And I completely fail to see how anyone can be a monotheist on planet earth and still claim the god thingy is benevolent and all-loving. I'd like some of the dope they're on tho.

I also think my personal freedom and religion are mutually exclusive. That alone makes me think a whole lot less of religious people. Especially the outspoken ones. I don't see how we can claim to help schizophrenic people, yet have religious institutions in our societies.
After all, religious people have several thousands of years of history, clearly demonstrating what a bunch of ultra violent and completely unstable individuals they are. Killing in the name of something you think is there, is completely unacceptable to me. Either that, or I should be allowed to kill people when I feel like it too.

Despite all of this, I do try to be reasonable about it. I'll not go off on someone for being religious. But I do reserve the right to beat up schizophrenics when they come knocking on my door with their propaganda of intolerance, in the name of their fictive buddy. I know it's wrong to beat up sick people, but some just ask for it.

Ok this all sound too harsh. Really. I try to keep my opinions to myself. But I refuse to do it when the creeps don't do the same. I really would love religion.. If only people didn't take it serious.

You know... quoting some obscure reference doens't make your point more valid.

Obscure reference?

Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code' has been consistantly in the top ten selling works of fiction over the last year or two.

If it's an obscure reference to you... well, I don't know what to say really...

Read a book sometime perhaps?

Anyway, Dan Brown's book doesn't just propose that they had a relationship, but that they also had a child and that that child is in fact the embodiment of the holy grail.

That's why I referred to it as a work of fiction!

Seriously, you'd never heard of Dan Brown?

Makes me wonder if you'd heard of the Gnostic or Coptic texts too... the Church doesn't like to talk about them you know.

I don't need to wonder why... I know why.

Obscure reference?

Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code' has been consistantly in the top ten selling works of fiction over the last year or two.

If it's an obscure reference to you... well, I don't know what to say really...

Read a book sometime perhaps?

Anyway, Dan Brown's book doesn't just propose that they had a relationship, but that they also had a child and that that child is in fact the embodiment of the holy grail.

That's why I referred to it as a work of fiction!

Seriously, you'd never heard of Dan Brown?

Makes me wonder if you'd heard of the Gnostic or Coptic texts too... the Church doesn't like to talk about them you know.

I don't need to wonder why... I know why.
Never heard of him, sorry. Some of us have better things to do than read fiction.

Gnostic and Coptic texts I've read about, though not read. I don't wonder that the Church doesn't like to talk about them.

Never heard of him, sorry. Some of us have better things to do than read fiction.

Gnostic and Coptic texts I've read about, though not read. I don't wonder that the Church doesn't like to talk about them.

Jeez he's like the most famous breakthrough author of the last few years.

I didn't read his book tho... looks like crap to me :D

Mainly because they (gnostic writings) are a lot of gunk. It's not other stories of Jesus and the disciples or anything fun like that.

Gospel of Thomas: not a gospel at all, a list of sayings, most of which sound familiar ~ some odd ball ones.

Infancy Gospels: total Bunk, but some of their stories are referenced in the Qur'an suprisingly enough...

The main reason the gnostic books are detered is not because they have great meaningful secrets, but buecause they are 'wrong' doctrine. Such as, God created the soul, Satan created the universe, everything, including yourself, is scum, you can't enjoy life or you are going to hell... things like that.

Jeez he's like the most famous breakthrough author of the last few years.

I didn't read his book tho... looks like crap to me :D

It is crap... you wouldn't believe how much crap that book is...

Mainly because they (gnostic writings) are a lot of gunk. It's not other stories of Jesus and the disciples or anything fun like that.

Gospel of Thomas: not a gospel at all, a list of sayings, most of which sound familiar ~ some odd ball ones.

Infancy Gospels: total Bunk, but some of their stories are referenced in the Qur'an suprisingly enough...

The main reason the gnostic books are detered is not because they have great meaningful secrets, but buecause they are 'wrong' doctrine. Such as, God created the soul, Satan created the universe, everything, including yourself, is scum, you can't enjoy life or you are going to hell... things like that.

There's some very odd stuff in the Cannon Bible too... try reading Ezekiel!

There are about twenty different references to the Gnostic texts in the remaining 'cannon' portions of the New Testament, and not as a reference to a different creed but as reference to complimentary writings intended to be part of the 'whole'.

Did you consider that the 'Bunk' may actually be metaphysical or metaphorical philosophical theory? How else do you understand 70% of the rest of the Bible if you don't?

Plus, there about ten 'nearly complete' 'lost' works, and you've only attempted to discredit two of them... neither of which deal with Jesus (Several do, as opposed to your claim.)

It is crap... you wouldn't believe how much crap that book is...

Oh I'm fairly familiar with poor writing... 'been responsible for some of my own in my time... ;)

Gospel of Thomas: not a gospel at all, a list of sayings, most of which sound familiar ~ some odd ball ones.
Sounds more interesting than the Book of Begats in the Bible. ;)

There's some very odd stuff in the Cannon Bible too... try reading Ezekiel!

There are about twenty different references to the Gnostic texts in the remaining 'cannon' portions of the New Testament, and not as a reference to a different creed but as reference to complimentary writings intended to be part of the 'whole'.

Did you consider that the 'Bunk' may actually be metaphysical or metaphorical philosophical theory? How else do you understand 70% of the rest of the Bible if you don't?

Plus, there about ten 'nearly complete' 'lost' works, and you've only attempted to discredit two of them... neither of which deal with Jesus (Several do, as opposed to your claim.)


Oh wait wait wait... no, I did not try to discredit the 'lost' writings, like Gospel of Peter, or things like that. I specifically said, gnostic. Gnostic does not mean 'lost' or other. Gnostic writings are 'different' It's more like the LDS book. They have it in 'addition' to, not a part of, the Bible. And, IMO, the gnostics (and the LDS add on book for that matter) are bunk.

If you are defending gnostic books with the above meaning in mind, then yeah, I'm discrediting those two. I've read them, and I know that they aren't old enough to be accurate accounts - both were written at least a hundred years later than the cannon gospels and the gospel of Peter (for example).

Oh wait wait wait... no, I did not try to discredit the 'lost' writings, like Gospel of Peter, or things like that. I specifically said, gnostic. Gnostic does not mean 'lost' or other. Gnostic writings are 'different' It's more like the LDS book. They have it in 'addition' to, not a part of, the Bible. And, IMO, the gnostics (and the LDS add on book for that matter) are bunk.

If you are defending gnostic books with the above meaning in mind, then yeah, I'm discrediting those two. I've read them, and I know that they aren't old enough to be accurate accounts - both were written at least a hundred years later than the cannon gospels and the gospel of Peter (for example).

I'm defending 'some' of the Gnostic writings as well as the other lost texts. A lot of the hardcore Gnostic stuff is pretty out there, but I do think that all of it should be read in order to achive a better understanding of the early Church before the codification of the 3rd century AD removed the ambiguities, as a method of understanding the reasons why it is in the state it is in today.

All of the lost books when found should be read and are worthwhile, and maybe, maybe some of the gnostic works are mislabeled as gnostic when they are not gnostic.

However, if you want to understand the early church then don't bother with the gnostics because it is essentially a different religion. Of the 318 bishops at the council of Niaea, only 7 brought gnostic stuff and five of them threw their stuff away willingly, 2 resisted. One was convinced within a week that his stuff was bunk and the last did not. So, he was ostracized. However, a few months later, he too agreed that his stuff didn't hold up like it should and he was invited back.

My REAL point. The gnostic stuff (there is far more than just 7 versions of it) really means, different religions, not just different sects, and they never really considered themselves to be a part of the church ~ So, the church can't really blame them for why they are messed up now :p

(Reiterating though, I am NOT talking about lost biblical stuff, but gnostic stuff)

All of the lost books when found should be read and are worthwhile, and maybe, maybe some of the gnostic works are mislabeled as gnostic when they are not gnostic.

However, if you want to understand the early church then don't bother with the gnostics because it is essentially a different religion. Of the 318 bishops at the council of Niaea, only 7 brought gnostic stuff and five of them threw their stuff away willingly, 2 resisted. One was convinced within a week that his stuff was bunk and the last did not. So, he was ostracized. However, a few months later, he too agreed that his stuff didn't hold up like it should and he was invited back.

My REAL point. The gnostic stuff (there is far more than just 7 versions of it) really means, different religions, not just different sects, and they never really considered themselves to be a part of the church ~ So, the church can't really blame them for why they are messed up now :p

(Reiterating though, I am NOT talking about lost biblical stuff, but gnostic stuff)

Shrug.

I disagree, but then, I'm looking at it from the 'outside', so either I have some perspective and can see the similarities, or I'm not close enough to see the differences with enough relief. ;)

Either way, I feel that understanding the Gnostic & Lost texts (And they do have blurred edges between them... after all there are even Gnostic references in the New Testament) and their theories are equally as important as studying and understanding other offshoots of the Judo-Christain tradition like Papalism, Protestantism, Islam, all the rest.

The widest possible perspective allows one the greatest possible view of the religious tapestry.

Sounds more interesting than the Book of Begats in the Bible. ;)

I dunno - comparing lists of begats can be quite interesting. Like the ones in Matthew and Luke, for example.

Ha! You opened a can of worms with this one. Check out the following link:

Negative Correllation Between Intelligence and Religiosity (http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html)

Some excerpts, by date:



And now for your claim that "so few of the smartest people in the world believe it (atheism)":



And I'll leave you with the following graph that uses national population data to examine the link between IQ and religiosity. The raw data used to create this graph can be found here (http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001523.html).

http://w-uh.com/images/IQ_vs_religion.gif

Enjoy. There is no correlation. The idea seems absurd. Do people have an IQ drop if they convert, or the inverse if they give up faith? On one hand you have Einstein, on the other Bush.

There is no correlation. The idea seems absurd. Do people have an IQ drop if they convert, or the inverse if they give up faith? On one hand you have Einstein, on the other Bush.

People's IQ doesn't change if they convert, but on average, the IQ of the average Atheist is higher than the IQ of the average Theist.

I thought everyone knew this?

There is no correlation. The idea seems absurd. Do people have an IQ drop if they convert, or the inverse if they give up faith? On one hand you have Einstein, on the other Bush.
It may seem absurd but you just calling it as such does not make it incorrect ... care to provide any contradictory data?

And the IQ of suicidal people, depressed people and maniacs as a group have higher than the average IQ score.

Seems to me having a high IQ is not necessarily a good thing. Kind of a sick joke God plays on us, like marriage councilors having one of the highest divorce rates and psychiatrists having a high suicide rate, smart people (on average) tend not to be very happy people ... Maybe they should look past and above even their own understanding and re-examine the mundane simple things… maybe they should go to church more? :D :p

And the IQ of suicidal people, depressed people and maniacs as a group have higher than the average IQ score.

Seems to me having a high IQ is not necessarily a good thing. Kind of a sick joke God plays on us, like marriage councilors having one of the highest divorce rates and psychiatrists having a high suicide rate, smart people (on average) tend not to be very happy people ... Maybe they should look past and above even their own understanding and re-examine the mundane simple things… maybe they should go to church more? :D :p

Maybe they just see all the poor deluded sheep around them and it makes them unhappy to see how most of humanity is enslaved to non-existant wizards in the sky?

And the IQ of suicidal people, depressed people and maniacs as a group have higher than the average IQ score.

Seems to me having a high IQ is not necessarily a good thing. Kind of a sick joke God plays on us, like marriage councilors having one of the highest divorce rates and psychiatrists having a high suicide rate, smart people (on average) tend not to be very happy people ... Maybe they should look past and above even their own understanding and re-examine the mundane simple things… maybe they should go to church more? :D :p
Personally would rather be closer (or at least actively seeking the truth with an open mind) then accepting something just because it made me happy.

(I tried that … It did not make me happy anyways)

Personally would rather be closer (or at least actively seeking the truth with an open mind) then accepting something just because it made me happy.

(I tried that … It did not make me happy anyways)


You're probably just too smart to be happy :eek:


At least you can keep telling yourself that whenever you get too crabby that all the stupid people are happy :D

Maybe they just see all the poor deluded sheep around them and it makes them unhappy to see how most of humanity is enslaved to non-existant wizards in the sky?

Perhaps... :) Of course, Atheism is no relief either, from meaningless, so at least they (stupid religious people) can be happy while they live through it.

You're probably just too smart to be happy :eek:


At least you can keep telling yourself that whenever you get too crabby that all the stupid people are happy :D

Is it happiness that causes suicide bombers to blow up women and children on busses?

Is it happiness that causes suicide bombers to blow up women and children on busses?

It's not a love of God that makes them do it.

Perhaps... :) Of course, Atheism is no relief either, from meaningless, so at least, they can be happy while they live through it.

Atheism does not equate to meaningless... it actually gives more meaning to life, because what we do in this life becomes more important to an Atheist than it is to a Theist.

After all, to a Theist, everyone is going to live forever in heaven or hell after this life...

So who cares if people in Africa starve? They'll be rewarded in the next life for their piety!

An Atheist knows this is Bunk.

I am not an Atheist.

It's not a love of God that makes them do it.

Allah doesn't qualify as a God now?

You're probably just too smart to be happy :eek:


At least you can keep telling yourself that whenever you get too crabby that all the stupid people are happy :D

Okay, I shouldn't have said all. I should have said...


You're probably just too smart to be happy ~ At least you can keep telling yourself that whenever you get too crabby because you notice that only stupid people are happy...

Okay, I shouldn't have said all. I should have said...


You're probably just too smart to be happy ~ At least you can keep telling yourself that whenever you get too crabby because you notice that only stupid people are happy...

I'm happy, and I'm only mildly stupid.

I do know my IQ but I'm not gonna post it, 'cos anyone can make up an IQ and pretend they're smart without realising how IQ's are actually calculated.

Allah doesn't qualify as a God now?


They don't do it for the love of Allah either. They do it because they think there is no better way to help their people/cause etc., and they go freaky about religion just before doing it because they wouldn't be able to do it if they weren't either suicidal already, or thinking they WILL be rewarded for it afterwards...


At what point is the love of Allah required for that?

They don't do it for the love of Allah either. They do it because they think there is no better way to help their people/cause etc., and they go freaky about religion just before doing it because they wouldn't be able to do it if they weren't either suicidal already, or thinking they WILL be rewarded for it afterwards...


At what point is the love of Allah required for that?

It is the duty of a Muslim to fight a defensive war against invaders, and this defensive war may include 'intentional martydom'.
They believe there is no better way to help their people because this is what Wahabi'ist dogma indoctrinates them to believe Allah propounds as the best tactical option in their situation.

So yes, Suicide Bombers are motivated to act in the way they do by their adherance to, and love for, the Wahabi'ist interpretation of the word of Allah.

They could just pick up a rifle and shoot at soldiers, or partake in mass peaceful protests, but Wahabi'ism tells them that Martyrdom will be rewarded highest in the afterlife.

It is the duty of a Muslim to fight a defensive war against invaders, and this defensive war may include 'intentional martydom'.
They believe there is no better way to help their people because this is what Wahabi'ist dogma indoctrinates them to believe Allah propounds as the best tactical option in their situation.

So yes, Suicide Bombers are motivated to act in the way they do by their adherance to, and love for, the Wahabi'ist interpretation of the word of Allah.

They could just pick up a rifle and shoot at soldiers, or partake in mass peaceful protests, but Wahabi'ism tells them that Martyrdom will be rewarded highest in the afterlife.

So at what point is the Love of God needed to make any of that come about?

You filled in some more details, but I stand by my analyses. Love of God was not necessary, nor caused it.

I'm happy, and I'm only mildly stupid.

I do know my IQ but I'm not gonna post it, 'cos anyone can make up an IQ and pretend they're smart without realising how IQ's are actually calculated.
Mine is 9500 :p
Um oh wait that cant be right ... (being silly)

So at what point is the Love of God needed to make any of that come about?

You filled in some more details, but I stand by my analyses. Love of God was not necessary, nor caused it.

People wouldn't believe in Allah in the first place if they didn't Love him, isn't that rather self-evident?

Here are the steps in bite-size form:

1 - Dude Loves and believes in Allah
2 - Dude's people are at war
3 - Dude's understanding is that what Allah wants most is Martyrs
4 - Dude Loves Allah and does what Allah wants most
5 - Dude blows up a school bus

People wouldn't believe in Allah in the first place if they didn't Love him, isn't that rather self-evident?

Here are the steps in bite-size form:

1 - Dude Loves and believes in Allah
2 - Dude's people are at war
3 - Dude's understanding is that what Allah wants most is Martyrs
4 - Dude Loves Allah and does what Allah wants most
5 - Dude blows up a school bus


No, it's not self evident. The love of God is NOT in the picture.

1 - Dude is indoctrinated via culture or submersion, into belief (any belief)
2 - Dude is convinced to do something (usually for his friends saying he should)
3 - Dude is told he will be rewarded
4 - Dude is either (near social retard (not insult, description) and is highly influence-able, OR suicidal depressed anyway)
5 - Dude blows up where he is told to do it, or where he’s been trained or thinks as the best place...


EDIT: the difference between this and someone who sacrifices themselves for war, or in defense of their family etc., is the target and the immediate threat, the determination to stop the immediate danger is not present in a suicidal bomber scenario.

It may seem absurd but you just calling it as such does not make it incorrect ... care to provide any contradictory data? With IQ, I am contradictory - I got 111 and 130 in the same day. I don't know how that happened, especially considering I'm not that good at anything vaguely mathematical.
IQ does NOT equal intelligence. Otherwise Europeans are more intelligent than Africans…

With IQ, I am contradictory - I got 111 and 130 in the same day. …

They move scores around based on tests and cultural influences...

So, afterward, I said, "I'm illiterate," and so they added 10 point onto my score and so, I had to subract 20 from theirs.. :p :D :D

No, it's not self evident. The love of God is NOT in the picture.

1 - Dude is indoctrinated via culture or submersion, into belief (any belief)
2 - Dude is convinced to do something (usually for his friends saying he should)
3 - Dude is told he will be rewarded
4 - Dude is either (near social retard (not insult, description) and is highly influence-able, OR suicidal depressed anyway)
5 - Dude blows up where he is told to do it, or where he’s been trained or thinks as the best place...


EDIT: the difference between this and someone who sacrifices themselves for war, or in defense of their family etc., is the target and the immediate threat, the determination to stop the immediate danger.


You don't think that our Dude Loves Allah? That is part of his conditioning after all!

You even state he is indoctrinated into a belief... well the belief of Suicide Bombers is that Allah (Whom they love) wants them to Martyr themselves.

Have you seen any of the videos released by the terrorists in Iraq of their Suicide Bombings?

I've seen a few, and in all of them as the car bomb / runner approaches their target you can hear only one thing being shouted, again and again by those who are making the recording.

'Allah Akbar!'

'God is great!'

With IQ, I am contradictory - I got 111 and 130 in the same day. I don't know how that happened, especially considering I'm not that good at anything vaguely mathematical.
IQ does NOT equal intelligence. Otherwise Europeans are more intelligent than Africans…

It's quite simple to cheat on large parts of the IQ test simply by practicing some of the puzzle types like ordering images or shape arrangement... Other aspects of the IQ test like aural comprehension section can also be improved simply by a good education. Even the memory test scores can be improved if you practice them, there's no part of the IQ test that can't be bumped up a bit with practice.

This doesn't make you a smarter person, just very fast at rearanging small wooden blocks with triangles drawn on them, for example.

Of course, I didn't practice at all before taking my IQ tests, because I wanted it to be as accurate as possible (I needed to detirmine if I had certain symptoms of Dyslexia)

No, it's not self evident. The love of God is NOT in the picture.

1 - Dude is indoctrinated via culture or submersion, into belief (any belief)
2 - Dude is convinced to do something (usually for his friends saying he should)
3 - Dude is told he will be rewarded
4 - Dude is either (near social retard (not insult, description) and is highly influence-able, OR suicidal depressed anyway)
5 - Dude blows up where he is told to do it, or where he’s been trained or thinks as the best place...


EDIT: the difference between this and someone who sacrifices themselves for war, or in defense of their family etc., is the target and the immediate threat, the determination to stop the immediate danger is not present in a suicidal bomber scenario.
And through all that in his mind he is doing it for the love of his god and doing what he thinks his god wants to see

you may think he is mistaken and confused ... But that does not make his love any less real to him

(And now you know how some of us atheists see how a lot of religous people act for "love" of their god ... who is to say what you do in "love" is not party to be atributed to the same reasons he gave for blowing things up)

You don't think that our Dude Loves Allah? That is part of his conditioning after all!

You even state he is indoctrinated into a belief... well the belief of Suicide Bombers is that Allah (Whom they love) wants them to Martyr themselves.

Have you seen any of the videos released by the terrorists in Iraq of their Suicide Bombings?

I've seen a few, and in all of them as the car bomb / runner approaches their target you can hear only one thing being shouted, again and again by those who are making the recording.

'Allah Akbar!'

'God is great!'

The love of something, is right. Indoctrination can be behavior forming without thought, if necessary.

But yeah, they very well would be expected to be saying something like that over and over again, because that was part of the training – A normal death usually involves someone being surprised by the course of events. A person that does not know that they are about to die might say something like... "Oh my God!" or "Shit!" or "What's this button for?" ( :p But that's beside the point).

Love of cause is required. Love of God is not required.


Once you start adding in the people that think their families will be financially taken care of afterward after they've done it, and once you've taken out the people that are not competent in a legal sense to make a decision as an adult, and the sick (suicidal or hatemongering) and the coerced (forced to do it or I kill your children etc.,)... there is very few left.

Then, with the people claiming love of God as the only motivating factor, I think none of them are blowing innocent civilians up.

The love of something, is right. Indoctrination can be behavior forming without thought, if necessary.

But yeah, they very well would be expected to be saying something like that over and over again, because that was part of the training – A normal death usually involves someone being surprised by the course of events. A person that does not know that they are about to die might say something like... "Oh my God!" or "Shit!" or "What's this button for?" ( :p But that's beside the point).

Love of cause is required. Love of God is not required.


Once you start adding in the people that think their families will be financially taken care of afterward after they've done it, and once you've taken out the people that are not competent in a legal sense to make a decision as an adult, and the sick (suicidal or hatemongering) and the coerced (forced to do it or I kill your children etc.,)... there is very few left.

Then, with the people claiming love of God as the only motivating factor, I think none of them are blowing innocent civilians up.

I don't think you comprehend that there is no difference to a bomber between his Cause and his God.

Dude's God wants him to Martyr himself if there is a war, and Dude loves his God, so he does what his God wants.

His cause is the will of God, and he Loves God.

There is no delination.

As for drawing a comparison between someone blaspheming in shock ('oh my God!') and someone exulting in the glory of their God for the destruction he is about to unleash upon the infedel civilians... well I think you may not understand the nature of religion at all.

You want to remove those who are not 'legally competent' because their Love for God is invalid?

I'm sorry, but under their beliefs, they are 'legally competent', and in fact are even 'legally obliged' to defend Islam through Martyrdom.

They are only legally incompetent in a society that is not led by Wahabi'ist Islamists... under their leaders, and under the beliefs of large parts of their society, they are an example of perfection, not abnormality.

EDITED because I can't spell competent

I don't think you comprehend that there is no difference to a bomber between his Cause and his God.


I would say you’re thinking was backwards, you’re the one that doesn’t see the difference. There is a difference.

Such as, a Kamikaze pilot and his love of his cause/emperor is in defense, as a tool, as an order/request. His target is military and the attempt to harm the enemy of his cause/emperor.

Love of Family might cause one in a crises to suicidally run into certain death in an attempt to save them, etc.

Is it the Love of God, or is it the Hate of the enemy and disillusionment and depression?



EDIT: I think a secondary part of our disagreement is that you equate the love of God as any other factor. I however beleive that a Love of God changes you because I believe there is a God. If I did not believe in God, I think I could understand how to reationize the actions of others who claimed it. Whereas, I recognise a difference when someone is lying about it. If you have met a person, and you know them, and someone else says that they know them too, but they then describe him wrong (hes too short and has the wrong color hair etc.,) you know one of two things to be true. They are either talking about someone else, or they are lying.

I would say you’re thinking was backwards, you’re the one that doesn’t see the difference. There is a difference.

Such as, a Kamikaze pilot and his love of his cause/emperor is in defense, as a tool, as an order/request. His target is military and the attempt to harm the enemy of his cause/emperor.

Love of Family might cause one in a crises to suicidally run into certain death in an attempt to save them, etc.

Is it the Love of God, or is it the Hate of the enemy and disillusionment and depression?
Is your love for your god (if you believe in him) disillusionment ? ... any more then his?

Just curious.

Just curious.

We're debating the merits of Atheism releasing one from the bonds of dogma, be that dogma Islamic or otherwise.

I don't think anyone equated Islam with Atheism??

EDIT: I think a secondary part of our disagreement is that you equate the love of God as any other factor. I however beleive that a Love of God changes you because I believe there is a God. If I did not believe in God, I think I could understand how to reationize the actions of others who claimed it. Whereas, I recognise a difference when someone is lying about it. If you have met a person, and you know them, and someone else says that they know them too, but they then describe him wrong (hes too short and has the wrong color hair etc.,) you know one of two things to be true. They are either talking about someone else, or they are lying.

So basically your metaphor is that other religious beliefs are describing God 'wrong' because you have 'met' God and presume to know his true face?

Wow.

So basically your metaphor is that other religious beliefs are describing God 'wrong' because you have 'met' God and presume to know his true face?

Wow.
I know ... I find it funny to see even within a religion they all claim this very thing and proclaim all the others got it wrong (saw a unitarian do that yesterday)

Its amazing how much gall it takes to proclaim your view is right and essentialy the rest of the world is wrong

I know ... I find it funny to see even within a religion they all claim this very thing and proclaim all the others got it wrong (saw a unitarian do that yesterday)

Its amazing how much gall it takes to proclaim your view is right and essentialy the rest of the world is wrong

I have the gall to want to debate ideas I have about the nature of reality, and to want to expose others to those ideas for evaluation and converstation etc... but to claim that I was the only one to know the true nature of the universe and everyone's place in it...

That's just... wow.

I have the gall to want to debate ideas I have about the nature of reality, and to want to expose others to those ideas for evaluation and converstation etc... but to claim that I was the only one to know the true nature of the universe and everyone's place in it...

That's just... wow.
Exactly ... even when most of us debate (at least me) I know that I could defiantly be wrong about something ... or new info come to light that I did not know about before

Not to mention on the religious side most are based around the idea that we as humans are fallible ... as such you would figure that a lot of religious people would be more aware that they could potentially fail at correctly interpreting “gods” word or that there could have been a failing down the line somewhere. And that their understanding of god could be flawed because of human fallibility … seriously flawed (not saying it is but a lot don’t seem to recognize it … they still go in blindly confident)

Exactly ... even when most of us debate (at least me) I know that I could defiantly be wrong about something ... or new info come to light that I did not know about before

Not to mention on the religious side most are based around the idea that we as humans are fallible ... as such you would figure that a lot of religious people would be more aware that they could potentially fail at correctly interpreting “gods” word or that there could have been a failing down the line somewhere. And that their understanding of god could be flawed because of human fallibility … seriously flawed (not saying it is but a lot don’t seem to recognize it … they still go in blindly confident) I find it wonderful when both sides complain about the arrogance and unwillingness to consider other points of view, of the other side. Both are right of course.

I find it wonderful when both sides complain about the arrogance and unwillingness to consider other points of view, of the other side. Both are right of course.

There aren't really two sides though...

There are Atheists, and then there are 5000 Religions.

Anyway, care to elaborate as to how both 'sides' are right?

It's really quite simple. If a person does not believe in God, the Supreme Being, the Creator etc., when they hear of someone else talking about it they think to themselves as, "I wonder what this guy is on about? Is he nuts? There is no evidence of that, he must be somewhere between crazy and self-delusional."

But that is not the only possibility even from a purely realistic point of view. Logic dictates, that IF there IS a God, then this person may be telling the truth. And this is invariably the last alternative ever accepted by an Atheist. And even then, when they accept the possibility, it's only accepted in theory of form (like an equation), not as actually being possible.

But if there IS a supreme being, a creator of the universe, and IF this entity decided to reveal itself selectively or if only a few people were capable of seeing the entity, the reality of the discussion would not be different. The logic of it is simple, both possibilities exist.

Consider, IF there is a Universal Creator, and two or more people can see it, they would likely be able to describe different aspects of it, what they saw from their point of view etc., but they would not be able to describe it as entirely different things unless they did not see the same entity.

But the ones that have see it, if they saw something real, it should not be surprising to find that they are completely unable pretend to have never seen it. How would they talk to a person that has never seen it and considers it impossible for them to have seen it in the first place? If I think it ‘can’t exist, then I can never believe them for saying that they have seen it, and I make excuses for them instead of believing them.

Exactly ... even when most of us debate (at least me) I know that I could defiantly be wrong about something ... or new info come to light that I did not know about before

Not to mention on the religious side most are based around the idea that we as humans are fallible ... as such you would figure that a lot of religious people would be more aware that they could potentially fail at correctly interpreting “gods” word or that there could have been a failing down the line somewhere. And that their understanding of god could be flawed because of human fallibility … seriously flawed (not saying it is but a lot don’t seem to recognize it … they still go in blindly confident)

I get the feeling from most of the atheists and their supporters that they think no religions have adopted this stance. However, the Roman Catholic Church (since the Second Vatican Council in the 60's) understands the fact that on almost everything it is fallible. It only claims infalliblity on the things which were directly shown to the apostles, like the divinity of Jesus. How the church acts on this infallible knowledge is what matters to the world, and it is also where the church admits it is wrong sometimes (ok rarely and only recently I know)

It's really quite simple. If a person does not believe in God, the Supreme Being, the Creator etc., when they hear of someone else talking about it they think to themselves as, "I wonder what this guy is on about? Is he nuts? There is no evidence of that, he must be somewhere between crazy and self-delusional."

But that is not the only possibility even from a purely realistic point of view. Logic dictates, that IF there IS a God, then this person may be telling the truth. And this is invariably the last alternative ever accepted by an Atheist. And even then, when they accept the possibility, it's only accepted in theory of form (like an equation), not as actually being possible.

But if there IS a supreme being, a creator of the universe, and IF this entity decided to reveal itself selectively or if only a few people were capable of seeing the entity, the reality of the discussion would not be different. The logic of it is simple, both possibilities exist.

Consider, IF there is a Universal Creator, and two or more people can see it, they would likely be able to describe different aspects of it, what they saw from their point of view etc., but they would not be able to describe it as entirely different things unless they did not see the same entity.

But the ones that have see it, if they saw something real, must then be completely unable pretend to have never seen it. How would they talk to a person that has never seen it and considers it impossible for them to have seen it in the first place? If I think it ‘can’t exist, then I can never believe them for saying that they have seen it, and I make excuses for them instead of believing them.

I don't think most Atheists believe that Deities "can't" exist.

They believe that Deities "don't" exist.

I've met plenty of Atheists (Some in this very thread) who have this position.

Conversely, I've yet to meet a Theist who can say 'I concede there is a possibility, even a probability, that God might not exist and I might actually be continuing a negative (evil) institution in this world that wastes resources on pointless worship of nihil, but I still believe in him and follow all the commandments that my Church tells me to, even those that discriminate against groups like Gays' or Women's rights.'

No, in my experience a Theist will never concede the potential fallability of his position whilst still professing that all of his religion's codas should be followed anyway. I fail to see how this can be a 'right' position.

Clinically, the philosophical position I have defined above is similar to 'solipsism', a very bad mental disorder!

Don't even get me started on how believing in and actively practicing religion on a 'faith' basis fits enough criteria to medically qualify as schizophrenia!

In my experience, anyone who can admit the potential fallability of their belief becomes an Agnostic, abandoning what they now see as iconoclastic millenias-old rituals.

So, am I right?

I get the feeling from most of the atheists and their supporters that they think no religions have adopted this stance. However, the Roman Catholic Church (since the Second Vatican Council in the 60's) understands the fact that on almost everything it is fallible. It only claims infalliblity on the things which were directly shown to the apostles, like the divinity of Jesus. How the church acts on this infallible knowledge is what matters to the world, and it is also where the church admits it is wrong sometimes (ok rarely and only recently I know)
And it still is the judge of fallibility and infalibility
How do we know they have not failed in their judgement? or that someone made up a fictional charicter or mass delusion and not recorded it

Just because they are sure about it does not make it true ... their understanding can still fail

I get the feeling from most of the atheists and their supporters that they think no religions have adopted this stance. However, the Roman Catholic Church (since the Second Vatican Council in the 60's) understands the fact that on almost everything it is fallible. It only claims infalliblity on the things which were directly shown to the apostles, like the divinity of Jesus. How the church acts on this infallible knowledge is what matters to the world, and it is also where the church admits it is wrong sometimes (ok rarely and only recently I know)

Ahhh but has it ever been admitted that the words of the Bible are fallible, because they were written down, copied, edited and translated by men, and that they are thousands of years and many iterations removed from God or Jesus' original words?

See dozens of posts I made above about the mutation of the Bible to see why I'm asking!

EDIT: I can't spell fallable because I'm fallible.

My answer was already in there….


IF there is a Creator, Universal Entity and IF they somehow were able to precieve it (see, hear, feel etc., in a way to them than Is/Was real) logic dictates that they would then be completely unable to pretend to have NOT seen it. Not even for the sake of ‘fairness.’

How could they talk to a person that has never seen it, and considers it, at best, improbable for them to have seen it? If they think it doesn’t exist, then they can never believe the person for saying that they have seen it, and make excuses for them instead of believing them, and now, accuse them of not recognizing all possibilities of the discussion anymore (because for them, having seen it, if it is real, they cannot pretend to argue that it might not be real anymore when the know it is).

Still logic here. You can’t hold it against them logically, that they don’t recognize your concern that it might NOT be real. To them, that’s not longer logical, even if they still intellectually understand or rememeber why you can't beleive them).

Ahhh but has it ever been admitted that the words of the Bible are fallible, because they were written down, copied, edited and translated by men, and that they are thousands of years and many iterations removed from God or Jesus' original words?

See dozens of posts I made above about the mutation of the Bible to see why I'm asking!

EDIT: I can't spell fallable because I'm fallible. Romans don't believe in sola scriptura (scriptures alone).

Romans don't believe in sola scriptura (scriptures alone).

That isn't what I was asking.

My answer was already in there….


IF there is a Creator, Universal Entity and IF they somehow were able to precieve it (see, hear, feel etc., in a way to them than Is/Was real) logic dictates that they would then be completely unable to pretend to have NOT seen it. Not even for the sake of ‘fairness.’

How could they talk to a person that has never seen it, and considers it, at best, improbable for them to have seen it? If they think it doesn’t exist, then they can never believe the person for saying that they have seen it, and make excuses for them instead of believing them, and now, accuse them of not recognizing all possibilities of the discussion anymore (because for them, having seen it, if it is real, they cannot pretend to argue that it might not be real anymore when the know it is).

Still logic here. You can’t hold it against them logically, that they don’t recognize your concern that it might NOT be real. To them, that’s not longer logical, even if they still intellectually understand or rememeber why you can't beleive them).

Would you do me a favour and clarify your hypothetical prophet's thought process in a progressive list format? I'm having trouble following you.

IF there is a Creator, Universal Entity and IF they somehow were able to precieve it (see, hear, feel etc., in a way to them than Is/Was real) logic dictates that they would then be completely unable to pretend to have NOT seen it. Not even for the sake of ‘fairness.’

But what is the difference between them and the person that knows unicorns or the green men from the planet Zlob exist ?

But what is the difference between them and the person that knows unicorns or the green men from the planet Zlob exist ?

I think he's talking about someone who has literally come face to face with God, and understood his every possible thought and ramification of meaning utterly and completely.

I don't really follow what he's getting at in the rest of his statement however.

I think he's talking about someone who has literally come face to face with God, and understood his every possible thought and ramification of meaning utterly and completely.

I don't really follow what he's getting at in the rest of his statement however.

I never said anyone needed to understood his every possible thought and ramification of meaning utterly and completely. I never even implied it.

I said;

IF there is a God

Then if so then it is possible that God did reveal himself to them (saw, felt, heard whatever).

Then, IF they are telling the truth, they would be UNABLE to pretend for the sake of argument that there was not God.

The point being. Even if there IS a God that reveals itself, That a third person watching the conversation between you and them would look exactly to same as it does now. The conversation would, in it's entriety, be unchanged from beginning to end.

Ahhh but has it ever been admitted that the words of the Bible are fallible, because they were written down, copied, edited and translated by men, and that they are thousands of years and many iterations removed from God or Jesus' original words?

See dozens of posts I made above about the mutation of the Bible to see why I'm asking!

EDIT: I can't spell fallable because I'm fallible.


IN regard to just factual history I submit the following:

There is the old Latin version of the Bible, used for centuries by Christendom. This version, called The Old Latin Vulgate (or Itala), is known to have been in existence by AD 157. Church father Turtullian, in his own writings dated around 200 C.E, cited various Latin quotations directly from The Old Latin Vulgate. This "original" vulgate (Latin) version continued to be used for nearly a millennium, until Latin basically ceased being a common language.

Determining the age of the scriptures lets us compare them to modern day translations to look for and find errors, if any, or omission or additions have been made of the millennia, between us and the original authors.

Consider the original recipients of Scripture. According to the scripture, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants became that medium from them to us now. And the very first portions of Scripture were by necessity written in their language, which was Hebrew.

Portions of the Old Testament in Hebrew date back several hundred years further than either the Greek or Latin versions. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, manuscripts now exist from as early as 168 B.C., and confirm that Hebrew was still the language used by Jews during the time of Christ. In fact, their discovery has helped establish the preciseness and integrity of Hebrew scribes in accurately reproducing manuscripts throughout the ages, and we can see that from at least 168 B.C until today, 2173 years later, that the scriptures have NOT gone through any essential recording errors (much to the surprise of ‘experts’ before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, experts expected there to be differences that turned out to not be there).

The oldest Bible versions available to us today are millennia old. The Masoretic Text, written in Hebrew, became the standard authorized Hebrew text around 100 AD. It existed prior to the writings of the New Testament, confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls as early as 168 B.C., and was used as the official Hebrew Old Testament at the time the biblical canon was established.

In much the same way, the canonical gospels and letters in the NT have been verified to be between 50A.D and 110 A.D.

As far as the New Testament, the Bodmer Papyrus II contains most of the Gospel of John and dates from around 150-200 AD. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains major portions of the New Testament and dates back to about 200 AD. The Codex Vaticanus, the oldest complete New Testament manuscript we've discovered so far, dates from 325-350 AD. The apostle John, who lived with Jesus and learned from Jesus, penned five New Testament books and died in 100 AD. We have fragments of John's Gospel that date from 110-130 AD, within 30 years of his death. When compared to other ancient works such as Plato, Homer or Tacitus, that short time period between the original and the most recent copy is dramatic!

Clement of Rome was martyred in 100 AD. In his writings, he quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 Peter, Hebrews, and Titus. Clement's quotes totally correspond with the Bible we read today. In fact, even if we lost all of the 5,300 early Greek manuscripts, all of the 10,000 Latin vulgates, and all of the 9,300 other ancient manuscripts, we would be able to reconstruct all but 11 verses of the New Testament from the writings of the early Church leaders who quoted from them extensively. We have over 36,000 preserved quotes from the New Testament. In a nutshell, the Bible stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, and it's overall reliability is without question!

To argue that they ‘may have’ been changed since these dates is nonsense.


HOWEVER, translation IS an ongoing concern. The languages used in forming the Bible in its entirety need to be translated and modern day translators don’t always agree on these interpretations. Some people suggest that learning the Hebrew and Greek yourself is the only way to know for sure what it says, but that’s not right either. Learning it now, you learn the words that are taught now, by the person teaching it to you now, and thus, you only become a translator of your teacher…

Reading as many different translations is best. Let them argue it out, and determine which you think is most likely right. It might be a good idea to learn as much about the historical world, via archaeology and whatnot, to help you put those words into context, but you CAN trust that the words themselves are what was written then...

I never said anyone needed to understood his every possible thought and ramification of meaning utterly and completely. I never even implied it.

I said;

IF there is a God

Then if so then it is possible that God did reveal himself to them (saw, felt, heard whatever).

Then, IF they are telling the truth, they would be UNABLE to pretend for the sake of argument that there was not God.

The point being. Even if there IS a God that reveals itself, That a third person watching the conversation between you and them would look exactly to same as it does now. The conversation would, in it's entriety, be unchanged from beginning to end.


I still utterly fail to understand your meaning.

Why would someone loose their ability to lie simply because they were talking about God?

I lie about God all the time!

Reading as many different translations is best. Let them argue it out, and determine which you think is most likely right. It might be a good idea to learn as much about the historical world, via archaeology and whatnot, to help you put those words into context, but you CAN trust that the words themselves are what was written then...

So you've re-proven my earlier point, that I've proven and shown examples of dozens of times during this thread, that you cannot trust that the translated works of the Bible retain their original meaning because they have been modified from their original form, and now posess new meanings.

See my posts on the sixth commandment for my favourite example, of course.

I'm not debating that the texts of the Torah have radically changed in the last two millenia, because Hebrew scribes have had meticulous procedures in place for thousands of years to prevent such occurances.

The New Testament however, has undergone considerable and proven reduction from it's original form, what remains is not original, but a simplified version with as few ambiguities as possible.

I still utterly fail to understand your meaning.

Why would someone loose their ability to lie simply because they were talking about God?

I lie about God all the time!

Because it's a 'lie' about truth...

It makes no sense. And it's likely the real meaning of why, Blasphemy the holy ghost, is a sin.

Because it's a 'lie' about truth...

It makes no sense. And it's likely the real meaning of why, Blasphemy the holy ghost, is a sin.

Could you rephrase that in complete sentances?

*snip*

The New Testament however, has undergone considerable and proven reduction from it's original form, what remains is not original, but a simplified version with as few ambiguities as possible.

Based on what? Considerable and proven reduction? From what, from who? From being lost before the council of Nicaea?. From what era do you think this considerable amount of work is missing from? The work was assembled, it was not disassembled... I have no idea what you are talking about?

Based on what? Considerable and proven reduction? From what, from who? From being lost before the council of Nicaea?. From what era do you think this considerable amount of work is missing from? The work was assembled, it was not disassembled... I have no idea what you are talking about?

There a literally dozens of fragmentary passages that have been found to have been removed from the Bible at one point or another.

Check this page : http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml for a nice list showing the development of the Bible over the years, you can watch as books fall in and out of favour over the course of about 5-6 centuries.

Yes the Bible has generally gotten larger, but in the process some books have been left behind.

Addendum, anyways, I'm more concerned about translation errors (Which I've proven easily myself earlier in this thread), though the reduction of Mary Magdelene's part in the history seems obvious to me.

There a literally dozens of fragmentary passages that have been found to have been removed from the Bible at one point or another.

Check this page : http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml for a nice list showing the development of the Bible over the years, you can watch as books fall in and out of favour over the course of about 5-6 centuries.

Yes the Bible has generally gotten larger, but in the process some books have been left behind.

Okay, you made it sound like the New Testament was being deliberately changed or altered, like books come and go. But that's not what you were talking about.

You were talking about books that were never a part of the New Testament but in your opinion should have been. Okay, I'll concede the possibility that some books were left out, but I had already said that previously.

Once canonized, they've been left intact.
As early as 200 the New Testament canon was mostly fixed in it's current and known form.

By 367 Festal Epistle of St. Athanasius offers us the earliest known list of the New Testament canon in its current form, and since that date, it's been done and unchanged.

I'm not one of those people that says you shouldn't read the other stuff (except gnositc is a waste of time) because some of it might have been included if it was available to them, but your statement about it sounded quite fraudulent.

It hasn't been changed over and over again as the mood passes...

wow this thread got really big....

Okay, you made it sound like the New Testament was being deliberately changed or altered, like books come and go. But that's not what you were talking about.

There are however indications that this has happened. Most of the churches were political institutions during their history, which interests that went far beyond spreading the good word. Choosing to do some "re-evaluation of possible meanings of certain phrases that seem favourable in the current political climate" would seem to be quite... human.

There are however indications that this has happened. Most of the churches were political institutions during their history, which interests that went far beyond spreading the good word. Choosing to do some "re-evaluation of possible meanings of certain phrases that seem favourable in the current political climate" would seem to be quite... human.

You see, that's just what people say but it is not substantiated. I'm not saying that nobody ever purposely misled anyone, I'm saying it's still there, the stuff we have today is more accurate than anything they had five hundred years ago (for example) not less so.

You see, that's just what people say but it is not substantiated. I'm not saying that nobody ever purposely misled anyone, I'm saying it's still there, the stuff we have today is more accurate than anything they had five hundred years ago (for example) not less so.

Yes but it's still only accurate in the majority to what had coalesced by the end of the 3rd century, with some sections being added (and occasionally removed again) for several centuries following that...

Who is the 'blessed disciple' if not Mary?

Why are there dozens of cross references to and from the Gnostic writings to be found within the NT?

Why are Theists on average less intelligent?

Oh wait, that last one's a scientific fact, not cannon*!

*Another word for opinion

Yes but it's still only accurate in the majority to what had coalesced by the end of the 3rd century, with some sections being added (and occasionally removed again) for several centuries following that...

Who is the 'blessed disciple' if not Mary?

Why are there dozens of cross references to and from the Gnostic writings to be found within the NT?

Why are Theists on average less intelligent?

Oh wait, that last one's a scientific fact, not cannon*!

*Another word for opinion

Um, I thought either Mary or Peter the blessed disciple? I need to read up on the NT.

IQ does not equal intelligence…

IQ does not equal intelligence…


Actually it does, in a general, averages-based manner.

The IQ is actually calculated from IIRC eight-to-twelve different mental capabilities, which show you your capabilities in specific areas.

This data is then averaged out between all the results and you IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is revealed.

You can push your scores up five percent or so with practice, but generally no more, so it's a pretty good indicator of mental prowess.

IQ indicated your ability to learn, not what you know.

You could have the highest IQ in the world and still be dull as a doorknob.

Because of all the idiots in religion. To become an atheist requires independent thought. However, that does not mean that there are not smart religious people it is just we got burned because of our large numbers of loyal followers and the fact that we are the predominant belief.

Because of all the idiots in religion. To become an atheist requires independent thought. However, that does not mean that there are not smart religious people it is just we got burned because of our large numbers of loyal followers and the fact that we are the predominant belief.
Well group of beliefs … that was all religions not just one

IQ indicated your ability to learn, not what you know.

You could have the highest IQ in the world and still be dull as a doorknob.

Not true at all, have you tried an IQ test?

Only about 10% of the IQ test is based on 'knowlege'

I am an atheist. I belive that religion today is nothing if not a negative influence on the world. I find the concept of a higher being absurd and the monotheistic god is purely illogical by nature.

I'm not an atheist but I repect all people and their beliefs long as don't they try to convert me

IQ indicated your ability to learn, not what you know.

You could have the highest IQ in the world and still be dull as a doorknob.
You are thinking more an ACT style test where an SAT is an aquired knoledge sort of test (rough fitting not exactly the same)

Actually it does, in a general, averages-based manner.

The IQ is actually calculated from IIRC eight-to-twelve different mental capabilities, which show you your capabilities in specific areas.

This data is then averaged out between all the results and you IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is revealed.

You can push your scores up five percent or so with practice, but generally no more, so it's a pretty good indicator of mental prowess. Depends what you mean by mental prowess. I mean, strategy, mathematical reasoning, logic, learning, manipulation of humans… they're all different types of "intelligence". IQ is only mathematical logic.

Depends what you mean by mental prowess. I mean, strategy, mathematical reasoning, logic, learning, manipulation of humans… they're all different types of "intelligence". IQ is only mathematical logic.
Where did you get that idea? Have you ever taken an IQ test? (if so you must have missed the the rest of the sections)
Most Iq tests are set up with the following catagories

OVERALL IQ
ARITHMETIC
ALGEBRAIC
ROTE UTILIZATION
LOGICAL
VISUAL APPREHENSION
SPATIAL SKILL
INTUITION
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
VOCABULARY
SHORT TERM MEMORY
SPELLING
GEOMETRIC
COMPUTATIONAL SPEED
GRAPH BASE

Well yeah by religion I meant all although I did not make that very clear(what I said did lean towards christianity as it is popular and full of idiots). Anyway this debate about IQ is stupid, it does not test all intelligences but it does test all academic intelligences. It most certainly covers most of the traits that the general populace believes to fall under intelligence.

atheism isnt really "good" or "bad" ... religion is rarely clear cut, black and white. Most religions are generally "good" to most extent. Even ones that focus solely on the sacrificing/raping small animals/children can be seen as "good" in the eyes of those practicing.

i think god is something people made up to made them selves les insignificant otherwise we would all have committed suicide (even me as an atheist) though i do like the idea of tiki gods and the like

i think god is something people made up to made them selves les insignificant otherwise we would all have committed suicide (even me as an atheist) though i do like the idea of tiki gods and the like
Erm, I do not now, nor have I ever, believed in God, gods, spirits, fairies, or any supernatural beings whatsoever. I have never committed suicide.

What do you believe in then? After all there is nothing special or great in this life.

What do you believe in then? After all there is nothing special or great in this life.
Life itself is a very special thing. Consciousness, cognition, is precious. Being is great. I cannot understand people who can take it for granted.

I'm christian, but I still regard all religions and lack thereof with respect, allowing people to belive what they want.

I don't know, I guess I just view living as sort of pointless because there is nothing inherently special about life itself. I mean without the divine we are only space dust that resides on space dust. At the very least that is how I tend to look at it.

yes, but we are intelligent space dust, feeding off the less intelligent space dust, and sitting on unintelligent space dust. thus is nature.

I don't think most Atheists believe that Deities "can't" exist.

They believe that Deities "don't" exist.

I've met plenty of Atheists (Some in this very thread) who have this position.

Conversely, I've yet to meet a Theist who can say 'I concede there is a possibility, even a probability, that God might not exist and I might actually be continuing a negative (evil) institution in this world that wastes resources on pointless worship of nihil, but I still believe in him and follow all the commandments that my Church tells me to, even those that discriminate against groups like Gays' or Women's rights.'

No, in my experience a Theist will never concede the potential fallability of his position whilst still professing that all of his religion's codas should be followed anyway. I fail to see how this can be a 'right' position.

Clinically, the philosophical position I have defined above is similar to 'solipsism', a very bad mental disorder!

Don't even get me started on how believing in and actively practicing religion on a 'faith' basis fits enough criteria to medically qualify as schizophrenia!

In my experience, anyone who can admit the potential fallability of their belief becomes an Agnostic, abandoning what they now see as iconoclastic millenias-old rituals.

So, am I right?You are absolutely right. Theism and gnosticism answer two different questions.

Theism deals with a belief in god - theists believe in a god and atheists lack belief in a god.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Agnostics do not know if there is a god. But this does not prevent them from forming a belief about it. A lot of self-proclaimed agnostics are also atheists - they hold no belief in a god. However, they are averse to labelling themselves as such because of the social stigma that religionists have attached to the term.

Likewise many atheists may also be agnostics. They may admit they do not know that their belief is correct.

But, there are also gnostic atheists who claim to know that gods do not exist. Their arguments usually center around the contradictory attributes that humans have defined as essential to the god-concept (omnipotence, omniscience, demands worship, etc.)

However this group of gnostic (or strong) atheists is thought to be outnumbered by the agnostic (weak) atheists, so it is ironic that the common social misperception would be to confine atheism to only the strong position. This can be directly be attributed to the work of religionists whose demographic majority in society has allowed them pigeon-hole atheistic thought in an attempt to make atheism seem like the logical equivelent to faith.

You are absolutely right. Theism and gnosticism answer two different questions.

Theism deals with a belief in god - theists believe in a god and atheists lack belief in a god.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Agnostics do not know if there is a god. But this does not prevent them from forming a belief about it. A lot of self-proclaimed agnostics are also atheists - they hold no belief in a god. However, they are averse to labelling themselves as such because of the social stigma that religionists have attached to the term.

Likewise many atheists may also be agnostics. They may admit they do not know that their belief is correct.

But, there are also gnostic atheists who claim to know that gods do not exist. Their arguments usually center around the contradictory attributes that humans have defined as essential to the god-concept (omnipotence, omniscience, demands worship, etc.)

However this group of gnostic (or strong) atheists is thought to be outnumbered by the agnostic (weak) atheists, so it is ironic that the common social misperception would be to confine atheism to only the strong position. This can be directly be attributed to the work of religionists whose demographic majority in society has allowed them pigeon-hole atheistic thought in an attempt to make atheism seem like the logical equivelent to faith.


Thank you sir or ma-am I have been arguing these very same points for a year ... no one seems to get it but us Agnostics/soft atheists

You are absolutely right. Theism and gnosticism answer two different questions.

Theism deals with a belief in god - theists believe in a god and atheists lack belief in a god.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Agnostics do not know if there is a god. But this does not prevent them from forming a belief about it. A lot of self-proclaimed agnostics are also atheists - they hold no belief in a god. However, they are averse to labelling themselves as such because of the social stigma that religionists have attached to the term.

Likewise many atheists may also be agnostics. They may admit they do not know that their belief is correct.

But, there are also gnostic atheists who claim to know that gods do not exist. Their arguments usually center around the contradictory attributes that humans have defined as essential to the god-concept (omnipotence, omniscience, demands worship, etc.)

However this group of gnostic (or strong) atheists is thought to be outnumbered by the agnostic (weak) atheists, so it is ironic that the common social misperception would be to confine atheism to only the strong position. This can be directly be attributed to the work of religionists whose demographic majority in society has allowed them pigeon-hole atheistic thought in an attempt to make atheism seem like the logical equivelent to faith.
Well said.

*bookmarks the post*

Well said.

*bookmarks the post*
Same ... these are one of the "discriptions about me" or at least about stuff that I should keep on my website for reposting later

I'm not religious but I don't really count as an atheist because I know gods (yes plural) exist, I just don't worship any of them.

The way I see it is this... (I'm going to use advanced maths as an analogy... sorry but it's the way I think about religion... I'll try to make it as simple as possible to follow)

In maths there are things called imaginary numbers...these are multiples of the square root of minus one... a number which cannot possibly exist as a real number... hense the name imaginary numbers... now if you didn't know anything about maths you'ld probably think having numbers that aren't real is pretty dumb... however you can do maths with imaginary numbers and here's the neat bit:-
there are mechanical equations (that is maths used in engineering to make stuff actually work properly) that take pages and pages to work out... but if you use imaginary numbers to solve the problem you can do it in a few lines and get the same answer.

So what's my point? well my point is that you can prove that imaginary numbers aren't real but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or can't effect things that are real... so to relate this argument to religion... gods may be entirely made up by the people that believe in them and still exist, just because they aren't real doesn't mean they don't exist and it's abundently clear to anyone (atheists included) that the mere fact of belief can cause gods to have a huge effect on humanity without any supernatural intervention at all.

What do you believe in then? After all there is nothing special or great in this life.
I don't share your opinion. Indeed, I think the supernatural sounds boring compared to the reality I get to live in every day. I don't need to turn to fiction to find excitement, fulfillment, and happiness. I'm honestly sorry if you do.

What do you believe in then? After all there is nothing special or great in this life.

What on Earth makes you say that? I consider a many things in life special or great, while remaining Agnostic.

"Are you an athiest?"

Yes.

"Whats your feelings on atheistism?"

Funny word. Did you just make it up?

"Whats your feelings on Christianity, Islam, and Others?"

Salvation for the mirror blind, to be blunt.

"Is athieism the future or is it the singnal of the degradations of society?"

Atheism just is. Some people need to believe in the supernatural and others like me don't. If anything, it's a "sign" that not everyone is naive enough to believe in an invisible sky daddy.

Will this post o' mine offend some of the 'true' believers? Probably.

Well life is fun, but it does not really seem to go anywhere. Where is the purpose in life alone and why would it matter if religion was fiction or not if there was no supernatural? I believe in order to give me a purpose. Ultimately we have to make up some fiction to give life a purpose because the atheist belief denies all greater truths instead prefering cold, harsh reality. A reality that I do not see the point to, sure you go around, do things, look at attractive people, and have fun but it is really not fulfilling.

Well life is fun, but it does not really seem to go anywhere.

Mine goes many places. Sorry if yours doesn't.


Where is the purpose in life alone and why would it matter if religion was fiction or not if there was no supernatural?

The purpose in life is whatever the being in question decides they want it to be. "Good" and "bad" and "purpose" are largely the construction of our minds. Nature has its goals, so to speak, but we often disagree with them anyhow.

As for your second question, it seems pretty self explanatory...if there is no supernatural, then religion is fiction, and anybody who continues to believe in religion is choosing fiction over reality. That might not be a bad thing, or it might be, but either way it definitely matters.


I believe in order to give me a purpose.

And that is why I believe that "believers" are inherently messed up. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but if you need to look to the supernatural to find purpose then that's really awful.


Ultimately we have to make up some fiction to give life a purpose because the atheist belief denies all greater truths instead prefering cold, harsh reality.

Reality isn't cold or harsh. It is real. If you find it uncomfortable then I am sorry for you. I find reality to be wonderful at times and horrible at times, warm and comforting at times and harsh and cold at others, beautiful and ugly, and every shade of mediocre...

I also believe superstition is anything but "truth." I don't believe religion is a greater ANYTHING, let alone a greater truth, since it is nothing more or less than a psychological crutch for those who cannot find support in themselves or the real world.


A reality that I do not see the point to, sure you go around, do things, look at attractive people, and have fun but it is really not fulfilling.
I heal the sick. I love. I learn about the building blocks of life. I explore my body and my mind. I bring happiness to other humans. I fight with people, I lose and I win. I have fun, and also pain. I have experiences that no other being will ever have, and I experience each moment in a way that no other entity ever has. Earth is heaven, hell, and everything in between. It would take a thousand of my lifetimes to experience even a tenth of this world...how could I be anything but fulfilled?

Look ultimately to see some importance in healing the hurt you have to believe something. Belief is never purely rational, although you may claim that your belief is rational ultimately it is your illogical little crutch thingy. A man without the existance of God is no more than a rock or the weather. He is nothing to care about. I mean, certainly we react to our environment but to a certain extent so does everything, all we are is a complex biological machine without the soul. Ultimately pain is only perception and all realities are custome made. So any being that chooses too live either is logical and does not care about the meaning of life or makes up their own lie to get them by throughout the day.

Well that was not my best response but the supernatural is as much of a crutch as any other reason. Sure healing sounds fulfilling but why do you think so? What gives healing meaning? Ultimately whatever reason it is it will be somewhat pointless because people are objects without souls. Why would I think I am anything? To think that I am important if not for a kind creator would be arrogance. I say that without a supernatural we are all nothing. Dust that resides on a slightly bigger piece of dust.

You're cruising along, enjoying yourself, your life and your future, perfectly content with philosophy, humanity and reality... Then WHAM! :eek:

BAM, BAM, BAM, Epiphany!!! You weren’t looking for it, you didn't expect it, you don't know why it came! It quickly seems to rearrange everything in the universe but you soon realize that it was always like that and then you wonder how you could have been so blind that you couldn't see it before.

The revelation messes your entire life up, all your little plans and ideals and ideology are dashed on the rock of eternity and makes you realize how incredibly shortsighted and naive you have been your entire existence.


Sometimes God doesn't just call you on the phone and hopes you'll pick it up, sometimes he comes over, bashes down the door and for all practical purposes kidnaps you... As you're being dragged away you're left realizing how futile it would be to call 911.

You're cruising along, enjoying yourself, your life and your future, perfectly content with philosophy, humanity and reality... Then WHAM! :eek:

BAM, BAM, BAM, Epiphany!!! You weren’t looking for it, you didn't expect it, you don't know why it came! It quickly seems to rearrange everything in the universe but you soon realize that it was always like that and then you wonder how you could have been so blind that you couldn't see it before.

The revelation messes your entire life up, all your little plans and ideals and ideology are dashed on the rock of eternity and makes you realize how incredibly shortsighted and naive you have been your entire existence.


Sometimes God doesn't just call you on the phone and hopes you'll pick it up, sometimes he comes over, bashes down the door and for all practical purposes kidnaps you... As you're being dragged away you're left realizing how futile it would be to call 911.

Funny how the people who arent looking for god are always the ones who find him. One would think it should be the other way around.

i believe that there is good and bad in every belief system we can become jaded by our experence with the people of religion or we can focus on the positives like helping people in need as athiests do as well there needs to be a guide line to good living as even athiest belive in being accountable 2 each other where as christians are accountable 2 god for wrongs commited against others and

by being accountable to god by following his commandments or reppenting we follow his guide lines if we only follow the word and not others we can do good and not be influenced by people doing wrong. were as by nothaving a good ordrely dirrection to follow like the way jesus walked we can become moraly barron and not know it . people around us can be guided by greed there own agenders and hide it as they believe the are not accontable 2 an omnipitent being like god.may god be with you or not you choose.

Well morality is a step towards greater evolution. An atheist/agnostic world with good morality is better than one of religious people who constantly sin in the name of the lord.

Well that was not my best response but the supernatural is as much of a crutch as any other reason. Sure healing sounds fulfilling but why do you think so? What gives healing meaning? Ultimately whatever reason it is it will be somewhat pointless because people are objects without souls. Why would I think I am anything? To think that I am important if not for a kind creator would be arrogance. I say that without a supernatural we are all nothing. Dust that resides on a slightly bigger piece of dust.

Here's a panther to cheer you up

http://www.worldstart.com/wallpaperjpg/1ws-%20Black%20Panther.jpg

Panthers give meaning to my life. ^_^

I heal the sick. I love. I learn about the building blocks of life. I explore my body and my mind. I bring happiness to other humans. I fight with people, I lose and I win. I have fun, and also pain. I have experiences that no other being will ever have, and I experience each moment in a way that no other entity ever has. Earth is heaven, hell, and everything in between. It would take a thousand of my lifetimes to experience even a tenth of this world...how could I be anything but fulfilled?

That's the best piece of writing I've read in months...

I think I love you! ;)

I mean, certainly we react to our environment but to a certain extent so does everything, all we are is a complex biological machine without the soul.

If I can paraphrase the words of Kurt Vonnegut in the book 'TimeQuake', I'll get the words wildly wrong but the meaning is here:

"All humans have a unique and wonderful conciousness,
allowing free will and all the rest,
let us name this wonderful thing,
let us call it, the soul"


Ultimately pain is only perception and all realities are custome made.

Solipsism is pointlessly circular!

So any being that chooses too live either is logical and does not care about the meaning of life or makes up their own lie to get them by throughout the day.

I care about the meaning of life and I do not lie to myself. I even believe I understand the meaning of life...

To quote 'Bill and Ted's Excelent Adventure' :

'Be excelent to each other!'

Honestly, can anyone come up with a better, more rounded philosophy than that?

Look ultimately to see some importance in healing the hurt you have to believe something. Belief is never purely rational, although you may claim that your belief is rational ultimately it is your illogical little crutch thingy.
I don't see it as "believing in something" so much as liking to make other people feel better. I don't "believe" in it, per se, I just enjoy being able to improve somebody's life.


A man without the existance of God is no more than a rock or the weather. He is nothing to care about.

What a disgusting sentiment. I, personally, believe that a person WITH God is diminished, and is less of what they might become without God, but I would never be so ignorant as to claim that they are "nothing to care about." I guess it's a good thing you believe in God, because you clearly are not able to function as a decent human being on your own.


I mean, certainly we react to our environment but to a certain extent so does everything, all we are is a complex biological machine without the soul.

"All we are" is a complex biological machine that has been shaped by billions and trillions of forces over billions and trillions of years. In terms of physics, in terms of the laws of our reality, we exist because we are the best possible "solution" for our particular niche in the universe; we are as we are because we could be no other way, according to how the universe has come to be. We are exactly as the universe intends us to be. Humanity as it is now is nothing more or less than the correct answer to a particular question, asked by the universe several thousand years ago.

If you cannot find joy or value in simply being a human, then you have my deepest sympathy.


Ultimately pain is only perception and all realities are custome made.

True, in terms of pain. How we choose to interpret reality is a choice, though the objective reality is not of our choosing much of the time.


So any being that chooses too live either is logical and does not care about the meaning of life or makes up their own lie to get them by throughout the day.
You yourself said that our perceptions are paramount, which appears to contradict this claim...if our perceptions are all that really matters, then "making up" a purpose for our lives is anything but a lie. Our self-created purpose is the highest truth we could aspire to. Only by passing off that responsibility (and privaledge) to another could we be acting dishonestly; by allowing another being to tell you what your purpose is, you are neglecting the more important duty you will ever be faced with as a conscious being.

I don't see it as "believing in something" so much as liking to make other people feel better. I don't "believe" in it, per se, I just enjoy being able to improve somebody's life. So if someone ‘enjoys’ something it’s okay? What if they ‘enjoy’ hurting people? That goes no where fast as a doctrine or even ‘guide’ for human behavior.


What a disgusting sentiment. I, personally, believe that a person WITH God is diminished, and is less of what they might become without God, but I would never be so ignorant as to claim that they are "nothing to care about." I guess it's a good thing you believe in God, because you clearly are not able to function as a decent human being on your own. A person WITH anything can’t be less, it’s nonsensical, the word ‘with’ of course means to add something. So, obviously, you mean something slightly different, Such as suggesting that we are less fully ‘something’ because they have added something in addition to ourselves? What is this ‘something’ that is achieved by doing it on your own? We are, after all, social creatures and we have developed in a way that we achieve greater results when we work in groups than we do on our own. With that in mind, what ‘goal’ is it that you think to strive to, what ‘something’ is it to be achieved by going on our own? It sounds like acting out, like something an angry teenager says to their parents, “I don’t ‘need’ anybody, I’d be better off on my own!” when everybody obviously knows that the exact opposite is true, they obviously aren’t ready to being out on their own… So what defining goal is that that you think we should be striving for and why aren’t we allowed to ask for help getting there?


"All we are" is a complex biological machine that has been shaped by billions and trillions of forces over billions and trillions of years. In terms of physics, in terms of the laws of our reality, we exist because we are the best possible "solution" for our particular niche in the universe; we are as we are because we could be no other way, according to how the universe has come to be. We are exactly as the universe intends us to be. Humanity as it is now is nothing more or less than the correct answer to a particular question, asked by the universe several thousand years ago.
If that’s all we are, we are a phase, a temporary ‘accident.’ We are now, but purely as a something that occupies time until the next ‘accident’ comes along. As one age turns into the next, the things that are, change and become the things that will be, but it is all above and beyond and out of our control. To think anything else would be self-delusion, just look at the fossil record and see how many things that were, but are no more, and predict by it’s example, how not just us as individuals, but us as a human race, are not even a blip on the screen yet…

BIG Secondary question this topic brings up: Why is it that the Astronomers/creation of the Universe people never seem to talk to the Evolution of Biology guys and the Geology guys? Now, for the sake of this discussion we don’t need to bother ourselves with what caused the first spark of life on earth, we only need to acknowledge that it did happen.

We decide to take three classes and combine them altogether for one grand scheme of ‘what we believe’ and how we got here, then surely we will be well rounded in our outlook.

First class, Evolution and Biology. Here we find that the first spark of life happened about 3.5 billion years ago on Earth, that seems to be about 1.5 billion years older than that… Okay, fine and dandy. We take our notes.

Next, we walk on over to our Astronomy and Astro-Physics class, to learn about our Universe. Here we find that the very best measurements of the Universe from it’s measurable expansion and growth rates, and movements and the speed of light etc., etc., etc. shows practically conclusively that the Universe must be between 10-15 billion years of age. Okay, that’s nice, we take our notes and notice that we have between 5 to 10 billion years to make the Earth and start life on it for us to be here! Excellent.

In our next class, Geology and Elements, we find out that nothing on Earth creates Iron, the base metal, the end product of all matter is essentially Iron/Lead. We find that it is ONLY created in the fussion of Stars/Suns… ? Well how is that possible we say, the planet’s very core is Iron and there’s hundred of thousand of tons of it all over the place?”

“Of course,” they say, “a Star a long time ago must have gone supernova and dispersed this Iron into the cosmos where it sped through the expanding universe for eons before cooling and slowing enough so that it could get stuck in a giant gas cloud and re-condense over time, reforming into a new solar system, taking billions of years to do so, of course.” Well, we might have time, we think, as we add this to our notes…

“Okay,” we think a little more hesitantly, perhaps even apprehensively… But they don’t stop there! No, they then tell us that they think the earth must be THIRD generation at least for it to have as many raw physical elements as it has!?!? What?!?!

So we run back to the Astronomy guys as fast as we can and ask how fast a Sun burns before it goes supernova? They say, “10 Billion years.” WHAT?!?! “But you said the universe is only 10-15 billion years old,” we say, pointing at our notes, “And we are supposed to be living on a third generation planet,” we say, pointing at more notes!!!

“Is there any other way to burns stars faster we say?” Sure, they say, “They then tell us that it depends on the size of the star, they can burn faster by being bigger, depending on how big the Star is its faster and faster because it uses up fuel faster and faster it last less time. The bigger it is, the faster it burns and uses up it’s fuel faster and goes supernova sooner, thus our problem is solved, we think, relieved.

But no, they won’t stop either. “The bigger it is,” they say, “the faster it burns, but if it’s too big it shears off it's own excess mass, but the maximum size star burns in less than say a quarter hundred million year compared to the normal amount of time we don’t think it will go supernova at all, we think it turns into a black hole then.” (or Neutron Star or White Dwarf) And thus, we notice as we take our notes, it would not disperse the needed elements to form the planet we need and in fact already have. Our problem is back because only supernova star can disperse the needed heavy elements to expalins what we have on Earth.

So, we look at our notes again. To create us, Human life on the Planet Earth, Life needs 3.5 billion years on a 5 billion year old planet, in a planet consisting of element s that need to be third generation supernova created, taking twenty five billion years without a moment to spare, in a Universe that is only 15 billions years old (and probably younger!).

~ I think we have a few issues that need to be to work out before we can assume that this: Bottle Said: "All we are" is a complex biological machine that has been shaped by billions and trillions of forces over billions and trillions of years. In terms of physics, in terms of the laws of our reality, we exist because we are the best possible "solution" for our particular niche in the universe; we are as we are because we could be no other way, according to how the universe has come to be. In fact, it seems, we can’t exist at all, by that reasoning.


If you cannot find joy or value in simply being a human, then you have my deepest sympathy. Agreed.


True, in terms of pain. How we choose to interpret reality is a choice, though the objective reality is not of our choosing much of the time. Objective reality is never our choosing…


You yourself said that our perceptions are paramount, which appears to contradict this claim...if our perceptions are all that really matters, then "making up" a purpose for our lives is anything but a lie. Our self-created purpose is the highest truth we could aspire to. Only by passing off that responsibility (and privaledge) to another could we be acting dishonestly; by allowing another being to tell you what your purpose is, you are neglecting the more important duty you will ever be faced with as a conscious being. How can their be a wrong answer or a ‘more’ important duty, if we determine we determine it ourselves? That’s silly. If we determine it ourselves, however it we do it always right, there is no wrong way by that reasoning. One reason cannot be more important than another at all.

So if someone ‘enjoys’ something it’s okay? What if they ‘enjoy’ hurting people? That goes no where fast as a doctrine or even ‘guide’ for human behavior.

I think this is why philosophical education is important?


A person WITH anything can’t be less, it’s nonsensical, the word ‘with’ of course means to add something.
What about someone WITH a dangerously twisted and largely detrimental view of the world (Most religious people)


With that in mind, what ‘goal’ is it that you think to strive to, what ‘something’ is it to be achieved by going on our own? It sounds like acting out, like something an angry teenager says to their parents, “I don’t ‘need’ anybody, I’d be better off on my own!” when everybody obviously knows that the exact opposite is true, they obviously aren’t ready to being out on their own… So what defining goal is that that you think we should be striving for and why aren’t we allowed to ask for help getting there?
No reason why not to seek help, just seek it from people who don't want your unquestioned faith, because we humans are fallible.

Philosophers want you to ask questions and help change philosophical thought... religions just want you to believe. Sounds like the easy way out to me.



If that’s all we are, we are a phase, a temporary ‘accident.’ We are now, but purely as a something that occupies time until the next ‘accident’ comes along. As one age turns into the next, the things that are, change and become the things that will be, but it is all above and beyond and out of our control. To think anything else would be self-delusion, just look at the fossil record and see how many things that were, but are no more, and predict by it’s example, how not just us as individuals, but us as a human race, are not even a blip on the screen yet…

Your point is? That we are doomed because time is the only absolute?
Everything dies, get over it.


*snipped lots of worthy musing about the formation of the Earth*

Good stuff, which would tend to imply either that:

1 - We havn't got our calculations right yet, because our scientific theories havn't advanced far enough to comprehend the begining of the universe.

2 - God intentionally made a 'silly' universe because he thinks it'd be a fun way to suggest the possibility of his own existance to an advanced species.

Well, when men didn't understand how to create fire, did he worship the lightning that spawned it?

You bet he did.


~ I think we have a few issues that need to be to work out before we can assume that this: Bottle Said: "All we are" is a complex biological machine that has been shaped by billions and trillions of forces over billions and trillions of years. In terms of physics, in terms of the laws of our reality, we exist because we are the best possible "solution" for our particular niche in the universe; we are as we are because we could be no other way, according to how the universe has come to be. In fact, it seems, we can’t exist at all, by that reasoning.

By current scientific reasoning, it is impossible to even begin to suggest how an entity such as God could exist.

I am not a scientist.


Objective reality is never our choosing…

Neither is perfection, or absolute altruism.

But we can strive for them nonetheless.


How can their be a wrong answer or a ‘more’ important duty, if we determine we determine it ourselves? That’s silly. If we determine it ourselves, however it we do it always right, there is no wrong way by that reasoning. One reason cannot be more important than another at all.

Relativism is better than Absolutism, natch.

*snip*

.

Wow.

.

Philosophers want you to ask questions and help change philosophical thought... religions just want you to believe. Sounds like the easy way out to me.

That's not true. It depends how you take your belief. Believing anything by default is dumb. Religion should also involved yourself sitting down and thinking hard about serious things such as values, morals, attitudes. Anybody who thinks being religious is merely believing a set of rules and waiting for an afterlife is clearly not taking religion seriously.

IIf you have met a person, and you know them, and someone else says that they know them too, but they then describe him wrong (hes too short and has the wrong color hair etc.,) you know one of two things to be true. They are either talking about someone else, or they are lying.

Or you havn't looked properly at the person. In the case of god no one can really know anything about hir, so that is obvious in all cases. If somebody do things that you don't understand for the love of god, then they simply know god in another way than you do.

I'm not religious but I don't really count as an atheist because I know gods (yes plural) exist, I just don't worship any of them.

The way I see it is this... (I'm going to use advanced maths as an analogy... sorry but it's the way I think about religion... I'll try to make it as simple as possible to follow)

In maths there are things called imaginary numbers...these are multiples of the square root of minus one... a number which cannot possibly exist as a real number... hense the name imaginary numbers... now if you didn't know anything about maths you'ld probably think having numbers that aren't real is pretty dumb... however you can do maths with imaginary numbers and here's the neat bit:-
there are mechanical equations (that is maths used in engineering to make stuff actually work properly) that take pages and pages to work out... but if you use imaginary numbers to solve the problem you can do it in a few lines and get the same answer.

So what's my point? well my point is that you can prove that imaginary numbers aren't real but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or can't effect things that are real... so to relate this argument to religion... gods may be entirely made up by the people that believe in them and still exist, just because they aren't real doesn't mean they don't exist and it's abundently clear to anyone (atheists included) that the mere fact of belief can cause gods to have a huge effect on humanity without any supernatural intervention at all.
Thank you, Grace Lane, that is a magnificent analogy of the metaphysical.

Look ultimately to see some importance in healing the hurt you have to believe something. Belief is never purely rational, although you may claim that your belief is rational ultimately it is your illogical little crutch thingy. A man without the existance of God is no more than a rock or the weather. He is nothing to care about. I mean, certainly we react to our environment but to a certain extent so does everything, all we are is a complex biological machine without the soul. Ultimately pain is only perception and all realities are custome made. So any being that chooses too live either is logical and does not care about the meaning of life or makes up their own lie to get them by throughout the day.
A rock and the weather are something to care about. Healing the sick is something to care about. The reality of human beings --of being human --is both emotional and thinking, irrational and rational, subjective and objective, at the same time. Two perspectives, one from the inside looking out, and one abstracted to view the individual as a part of the world around it. To see something as important, we have to "import" a value for it, we have look at it objectively and rationalize its value for ourselves, or others, or everyone, and then accept that as a judgement. When we look at things from the subjective viewpoint, however, importance takes on a new dimension --it becomes signficance. Meaning adds significance to things. Meaning, the thing filtered through the mind of an individual, changes the importance of something, for everyone, to significance, for one individual. All humans are capable of finding significance in things, from the largest to the smallest, through our ability to assign meaning to the world around us. Even atheists.

Things that are meaningful to us are those we care about. God is meaingful to you, but not to atheists.

Well that was not my best response but the supernatural is as much of a crutch as any other reason. Sure healing sounds fulfilling but why do you think so? What gives healing meaning? Ultimately whatever reason it is it will be somewhat pointless because people are objects without souls. Why would I think I am anything? To think that I am important if not for a kind creator would be arrogance. I say that without a supernatural we are all nothing. Dust that resides on a slightly bigger piece of dust.
What gives healing meaning is personal to Bottle, and that's it. Your saying it is pointless only says that it has no meaning for you. It doesn't have to.

We don't have to think we are important (and yes, that may be arrogant, depending on the circumstances) but we are always significant; just the fact that we exist, and are more than the rocks and the dust, is a marvel. We have minds, and that will always set us apart from inanimate objects. It means something to us.

So if someone ‘enjoys’ something it’s okay? What if they ‘enjoy’ hurting people? That goes no where fast as a doctrine or even ‘guide’ for human behavior.

Um, huh? I was simply saying that I enjoy helping people feel better. I was making no moral claim about it, nor did I at any time claim that my enjoyment constituted a "do what feels good" mentality...in fact, I said precisely the opposite.

A person WITH anything can’t be less, it’s nonsensical, the word ‘with’ of course means to add something.

*Eye roll*

Thank you, Captain Literal. All semantic games aside, I believe that a human being is diminished by superstition.


So, obviously, you mean something slightly different, Such as suggesting that we are less fully ‘something’ because they have added something in addition to ourselves? What is this ‘something’ that is achieved by doing it on your own? We are, after all, social creatures and we have developed in a way that we achieve greater results when we work in groups than we do on our own. With that in mind, what ‘goal’ is it that you think to strive to, what ‘something’ is it to be achieved by going on our own?

Huh? What the hell tangent are you on?


It sounds like acting out, like something an angry teenager says to their parents, “I don’t ‘need’ anybody, I’d be better off on my own!” when everybody obviously knows that the exact opposite is true, they obviously aren’t ready to being out on their own… So what defining goal is that that you think we should be striving for and why aren’t we allowed to ask for help getting there?

Wait, let me get this straight...so, because I say that I believe superstition to be unworthy of a mature human mind, that means that I am claiming "I don't need anybody"? How the hell do you get there?! Yes, I am saying that I don't need imaginary friends to get me through life, but that doesn't mean I don't need anybody. Far from it. I am a very social being, and I freely admit that many people have helped me (and continue to help me) as I grow and learn. I think it's fine and dandy to ask for help, I just think it's as stupid to ask God for help as it would be to as Santa or the magic garden elves.

If you need help, you should ask somebody who might know how to assist you...you shouldn't fold in on yourself and chat with your subconsious, and you shouldn't make up imaginary beings to help you, because then you will just give yourself whatever answer FEELS best, and not necessarily the correct or healthy answer. Introspection is important and useful, but only if you realize that it's introspection.


If that’s all we are, we are a phase, a temporary ‘accident.’

Utterly wrong. We are anything but an accident. We are the best possible solution. If you place a ball on an incline, is it an "accident" that it rolls down the slope?


We are now, but purely as a something that occupies time until the next ‘accident’ comes along.

We will continue to exist as long as we are the best possible solution. If we are no longer the best possible solution, we will cease to exist. Why should that make us less valuable? Is a play less meaningful because it has a final act? Is a book less valuable because it has an end?


As one age turns into the next, the things that are, change and become the things that will be, but it is all above and beyond and out of our control.

Yes, there are many things beyond our control. There are also many things within our control. So?


To think anything else would be self-delusion, just look at the fossil record and see how many things that were, but are no more, and predict by it’s example, how not just us as individuals, but us as a human race, are not even a blip on the screen yet…

Isn't that wonderful?! Look how amazing the world already is! Look at all the forms of beauty humans can appreciate and create, and we are barely out of our infancy as a species! Look how magnificent the scope of life is, and how beautiful each tiny speck of that life can be...


*edit for length*

Far too much of a hijack to clear up all the errors and misunderstandings in that lot. Suffice it to say, just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's wrong :).


~ I think we have a few issues that need to be to work out before we can assume that this: Bottle Said: "All we are" is a complex biological machine that has been shaped by billions and trillions of forces over billions and trillions of years. In terms of physics, in terms of the laws of our reality, we exist because we are the best possible "solution" for our particular niche in the universe; we are as we are because we could be no other way, according to how the universe has come to be. In fact, it seems, we can’t exist at all, by that reasoning.

According to the laws of the universe, we are the only possible solution. I'm sorry if you do not understand the science behind this...I only have begun to fully understand it, and I have been studying formally in the sciences for nigh on a decade. I would encourage you to pursue advanced education in physics, mathematics, and biology, with a healthy smattering of chemistry tossed in for spice.


Objective reality is never our choosing…

We are able to manipulate objective reality in many ways. Also, how we experience objective reality is largely up to the individual, whether consciously or not...this is a particularly interesting topic in neuroscience, one that is a hobby of mine, but I don't want to let my enthusiasm hijack us here...:)

How can their be a wrong answer or a ‘more’ important duty, if we determine we determine it ourselves? That’s silly. If we determine it ourselves, however it we do it always right, there is no wrong way by that reasoning. One reason cannot be more important than another at all.
I am sorry for the confusion: I was disagreeing with the thesis of the previous poster. The two statements you pointed out are not consistent because the first represents a criticism of his/her perspective, and the second is my own opinion on the subject. Sorry about that, I should have been more clear in how I wrote it.

How can you question whether atheism is good or bad? Its a belief! If you asked that of a religion it would probably be nigh on inciting religious hatred. No religious belief is good or bad, its a matter of perception

How can you question whether atheism is good or bad? Its a belief! If you asked that of a religion it would probably be nigh on inciting religious hatred. No religious belief is good or bad, its a matter of perception
While I agree you can analyzes the effects of a belief and find out if generally it is a good or a bad thing it exists based on your morals

"Athiest?
Is athietism Good or Bad? "
I might not be the first one to point this out but doesn’t anyone use check their spelling anymore?

While I agree you can analyzes the effects of a belief and find out if generally it is a good or a bad thing it exists based on your morals

Thats what I mean by it being a matter of perception

"Athiest?
Is athietism Good or Bad? "
I might not be the first one to point this out but doesn’t anyone use check their spelling anymore?

You're not the first and you won't be the last :rolleyes:

How can you question whether atheism is good or bad? Its a belief! If you asked that of a religion it would probably be nigh on inciting religious hatred. No religious belief is good or bad, its a matter of perception

What if my religious belief required me to detonate a nuclear bomb in the center of a large urban area?

Only the most nihilistic emotional void of a human could say that my act would be neither good nor bad... simply an artistic comment on the nature of society perhaps!

In the same vein, what if my religious belief told me to torture a small girl I believed was a witch, beat her and put her in a sack and throw her in a river?

Two people just went to prison in the UK for doing exactly that.

Were their acts devoid of any moral outcome?

Relativism is not particularly sensible when taken to extremes, after all, if you apply it to Religion, you should apply it to laws too, since they're also just codified rules and morals.

So, is paedophillia neither good nor bad? Simply an action? Why is it illegal?

Sorry but your extreme view doesn't wash.

Um, huh? I was simply saying that I enjoy helping people feel better. I was making no moral claim about it, nor did I at any time claim that my enjoyment constituted a "do what feels good" mentality...in fact, I said precisely the opposite.

Actually you said more. That IS what you said, but you failed to follow through what the natural course of what such thing is… And that, is the thinking that IF we can determine what is good and right for ourselves, then so can everybody else.


Thank you, Captain Literal. All semantic games aside, I believe that a human being is diminished by superstition.

Huh? What the hell tangent are you on?

I’m on about what ‘better’ thing can we be if we don’t have religion? How is one person a better person without religion than with it? You said it was so, but you didn’t explain ‘how’ it was so. So, I pointed out that you have this theoretical ‘person’ being one way or another, but instead of leaving it at that, you said one was better than the other without explaining what the scale/weight being used to judge good and bad were.


Wait, let me get this straight...so, because I say that I believe superstition to be unworthy of a mature human mind, that means that I am claiming "I don't need anybody"? How the hell do you get there?! Yes, I am saying that I don't need imaginary friends to get me through life, but that doesn't mean I don't need anybody. Far from it. I am a very social being, and I freely admit that many people have helped me (and continue to help me) as I grow and learn. I think it's fine and dandy to ask for help, I just think it's as stupid to ask God for help as it would be to as Santa or the magic garden elves.

Yes, you were saying humans are better without something that other people say makes them better. And this is very much related to the statement just above… How are they, in fact, how can they be better alone? Imaginary or not is not the issue.


If you need help, you should ask somebody who might know how to assist you...you shouldn't fold in on yourself and chat with your subconsious, and you shouldn't make up imaginary beings to help you, because then you will just give yourself whatever answer FEELS best, and not necessarily the correct or healthy answer. Introspection is important and useful, but only if you realize that it's introspection.

Lots of people address the subconscious for further exploration of themselves. Since when is the psychiatric field not a helpful science in your opinion? Like religion, there are other fields that address the whys and why-nots of what makes us tick, do you think they are equally degrading?


Utterly wrong. We are anything but an accident. We are the best possible solution. If you place a ball on an incline, is it an "accident" that it rolls down the slope?

We will continue to exist as long as we are the best possible solution. If we are no longer the best possible solution, we will cease to exist. Why should that make us less valuable? Is a play less meaningful because it has a final act? Is a book less valuable because it has an end?

WE are anything but an accident? Are you somehow suggesting that the Universe itself makes some sort of judgment call about what does or does not get a chance to experience life? That the Universal power you are imagining somehow determines with some undescribed but quantative scale of what is a ‘best’ and what is not a 'best' approach to existence itself. As if this power decides what is or is not worthy of getting a chance to exist and then, somehow, makes that decision come to pass?

Hmmm, perhaps you ARE religious after all. All the balls roll down the hill, even the bad lumpy ones, good balls - bad balls, they all end up at the bottom of the hill, but something else, according to you, chooses the 'best' balls.


Yes, there are many things beyond our control. There are also many things within our control. So?

Isn't that wonderful?! Look how amazing the world already is! Look at all the forms of beauty humans can appreciate and create, and we are barely out of our infancy as a species! Look how magnificent the scope of life is, and how beautiful each tiny speck of that life can be...

What is our scale for beauty and good? Compared to what? Why do we call this good and that bad? For a non-believer you sure have a lot of ‘scales’ of right and wrong and good and bad in you worldview. What’s the basic, or lowest weight scale for judging good and bad in your view?


Far too much of a hijack to clear up all the errors and misunderstandings in that lot. Suffice it to say, just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's wrong :).

You can argue your philosophy of science as a religion and display your view of theology as a crutch and counter every point I make, but you pretended like the science was wrong? Excuse me?

I have for the sake of this thread, made a thread for this topic... See bottom half of first post for the defense of this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9120054&postcount=1


According to the laws of the universe, we are the only possible solution. I'm sorry if you do not understand the science behind this...I only have begun to fully understand it, and I have been studying formally in the sciences for nigh on a decade. I would encourage you to pursue advanced education in physics, mathematics, and biology, with a healthy smattering of chemistry tossed in for spice.

I think you are taking science to an altogether new scale. You can make predictions of what will be found, but that’s science fiction, not science fact. You seem to be turning it into science-faith, not that there’s anything worse about that than just picking a religion, but then you dis the people that choose religion for having a crutch, but so do you, only you have a different name for yours.


We are able to manipulate objective reality in many ways. Also, how we experience objective reality is largely up to the individual, whether consciously or not...this is a particularly interesting topic in neuroscience, one that is a hobby of mine, but I don't want to let my enthusiasm hijack us here...:)

How we experience objective reality is largely up to your chemical composition (drugs for example) and how well the electric synapses of your brain and senses are working. After that, maybe, perhaps we can determine our own topics of thought, but even that is a question for the medical aspects of psychiatry.


In the end, I fail to see why you are so degrading to people that have chosen a different route than yourself. As if one is more ‘meaningful’ than the other. The truth is, without a supreme being, there is no good and bad. Only what is good for you and what is not good for you, and without rules we will end up with the strongest being the best.

But there is evidence of a 'good and bad' outside of own persons. Basic human nature gives signs that we are born with a belief in an untaught “fair” or not fair. And don’t even start thinking that it’s a learned trait entirely. Any parent with more than one child can tell you that children accusing each other of fair, or not, of share, or not, or I helped you now you should help me, it's a God given natural state of being with us humans.

We all have an inner guide of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ and what is fair and what is not, and we appeal to this cause all the time, child through adulthood. We appeal to it naturally being in other whenever we interact with them. You should do this or that because it’s fair, or right, or good, or better, and we ‘expect’ them to know what we are talking about.

You have addressed this 'right or wrong' being in existence yourself several times and you’ve appealed to it, but you have failed to mention where you think it comes from, despite my trying to prod it out of you.

EDIT: Moved long response about origins~science to it's own thread.

Isn't it fair to say the most people who style themsleves as atheists aren't really and are agnostics as they have failed to do as the definition of atheism suggests and explored many if not all other religions before decideing on a reason from them all combined why they believe that there is no God.