NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a post where atheists and christians can debate about certain topics. I am a christian and i will start the debate. The universe was obviously created i mean how did this all happen by chance? It just doesn't make sense to me.

This is a post where atheists and christians can debate about certain topics. I am a christian and i will start the debate. The universe was obviously created i mean how did this all happen by chance? It just doesn't make sense to me.You got jokes. :p

Yea well we'll see who's laughing later.

This thread is an instant classic.

This is a post where atheists and christians can debate about certain topics. I am a christian and i will start the debate. The universe was obviously created i mean how did this all happen by chance? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I am a Christian and do not think that science should be ignored. Science is the attempt to explain how the universe was made. Religion is the attempt to explain why it was made.

There is no god.

My arguement is as strong as yours.


No, seriously, this thread fails.

Not a Christian, or an Atheist, but I must point out that there's no reason it couldn't have happened by chance. It might be extraordinarily unlikely, but there's no known natural law that necessitates some sort of divine intervention to get where we are today (And, I must point out, if God truly did design us, he did a piss poor job. Seriously, what kind of designer installs an organ without function that randomly becomes infected, then inflamed, then ruptures, then kills you. It's just shoddy craftmanship).

Of course, I do believe in the divine Almighty, and the prefection of Gods works, but from a logical perspective (And no, that is not me saying religion is illogical) Gods existence is not required, and the state of the universe might even imply Gods absence.

Yea well we'll see who's laughing later.Even more jokes. :p
I'm atheist, and I see no reason to deny the fact that the universe exist.

I am a Christian and do not think that science should be ignored. Science is the attempt to explain how. Religion is the attempt to explain why.

I am Wilgrove and I agree with this statement.

*gives Katganistan whole cheesecake*

Was the internet lacking a place for atheists and christians to debate? While you're at it why don't you give us a place to argue over Kirk and Picard, Star Wars and Star Trek...

Was the internet lacking a place for atheists and christians to debate? While you're at it why don't you give us a place to argue over Kirk and Picard, Star Wars and Star Trek...

Don't forget pirates and ninjas.

Was the internet lacking a place for atheists and christians to debate? While you're at it why don't you give us a place to argue over Kirk and Picard, Star Wars and Star Trek...

"At least Patrick Stewart admitted he was bald!"

A slice of cheesecake to those who get the reference.

Was the internet lacking a place for atheists and christians to debate? While you're at it why don't you give us a place to argue over Kirk and Picard, Star Wars and Star Trek...



Im doing it.

Was the internet lacking a place for atheists and christians to debate? While you're at it why don't you give us a place to argue over Kirk and Picard, Star Wars and Star Trek...

It was lacking an easily accesible place for TI to complain about the persecution of christians....

Or at least that is my assumption based on his past performances... :p

"At least Patrick Stewart admitted he was bald!"

A slice of cheesecake to those who get the reference.

To baldly go where no man has gone before?

There is no god.

My arguement is as strong as yours.


No, seriously, this thread fails.

Trust me these threads NEVER fail.

Don't forget pirates and ninjas.
Ninjas are totally sweet (http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm) and could completely kick pirate ass.

Trust me these threads NEVER fail.

Exactly, this thread will likely last 50 pages. Does nobody see the minimalistic genius here?

Trust me these threads NEVER fail.

This thread is phailing pretty hard. It's on life support. All you said was "God created the Universe, prove me wrong!" You didn't provide anything beyond that for us to discuss. You didn't provide any evidence to support your decision.

Trust me these threads NEVER fail.

Depends upon what you want them to accomplish.

If you want them to accomplish absolutely nothing, then you're right, theey never fail.

Ninjas are totally sweet and could completely kick pirate ass.I am Gauntleted Fist, and I endorse this message.

Ninjas are totally sweet and could completely kick pirate ass.

I am Wilgrove and I approve this message.

Exactly, this thread will likely last 50 pages. Does nobody see the minimalistic genius here?

Mine do better, I mean I had one with an 8 word OP that became one of the top 10 (I believe) longest threads.

Mine do better, I mean I had one with an 8 word OP that became one of the top 10 (I believe) longest threads.

What sentence provoked that kind of reaction then?

This thread is phailing pretty hard. It's on life support. All you said was "God created the Universe, prove me wrong!" You didn't provide anything beyond that for us to discuss. You didn't provide any evidence to support your decision.

Yet the people still post, I'm doing it right now.

What sentence provoked that kind of reaction then?

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783)

God created the universe. It is almost impossible for the WHOLE universe to be made by coincidence. Also where the heck did the matter that caused the big bang come from?

Yet the people still post, I'm doing it right now.

Yea, we're lemmings. Start a topic regarding religion, politics, abortions, gay rights, or gun rights in NSG, and everyone flocks to it like a heard of lemmings running off of a cliff.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783)

Ah yes. I think there are two outcomes for this thread. Either we spam this thread so much right from the beginning that there is no hope for it ever going back to the original topic leading to a quick death to this thread, or someone makes one controversial comment that erupts into a massive 50 page shit storm.

God created the universe. It is almost impossible for the WHOLE universe to be made by coincidence. Also where the heck did the matter that caused the big bang come from?

So were did God come from.

Now you admit that either something could have always existed, or that everything needs a cause and thus you get into this nice little endless backstepping.


Game set match. That was way to easy.

Thread fails.

It is almost impossible for the WHOLE universe to be made by coincidence.

doesn't that almost give the game away?

Exactly, this thread will likely last 50 pages. Does nobody see the minimalistic genius here?

Depends upon what you want them to accomplish.

If you want them to accomplish absolutely nothing, then you're right, theey never fail.

They're the debate equivilant of the 'that's life' bit ("What's life?" "A magazine." "What's it cost?" "Twenty twice." "That's too much." "That's Life." "What's Life?" etc.)

"I have an invisible friend that controls everything everywhere."

"No, you don't."

"Yes I totally do. I feel him and everything."

"No, seriously, you don't."

"Uh huh, I totally do. You can't prove I don't!"

"I can't prove a teacup isn't orbiting Pluto either, nor can you prove that I'm not getting advice from a large invisible rabbit named Harvey-but they are both so unlikely as to be considered untrue, and so is your invisible friend that controls everything."

"But what if I'm right?"

"But you're not."

"No, I totally am. I have an invisible friend."

"No, you don't."

50 pages later-

"Seriously, I do."

and on and on and on and on

God is an IMMORTAL. Is your tiny little golf ball sized matter immortal? :p

Yea, we're lemmings. Start a topic regarding religion, politics, abortions, gay rights, or gun rights in NSG, and everyone flocks to it like a heard of lemmings running off of a cliff.

You know, lemmings don't actually do that; Lemmings are actually accomplished swimmers, and will often leap into the sea to complete their migration, rather than for mass-suicide. In fact, it turns out that the documentary that heavily popularized the suicide-myth was actually staged, with workers hurling lemmings off the cliff for the camera.

They're the debate equivilant of the 'that's life' bit ("What's life?" "A magazine." "What's it cost?" "Twenty twice." "That's too much." "That's Life." "What's Life?" etc.)

"I have an invisible friend that controls everything everywhere."

"No, you don't."

"Yes I totally do. I feel him and everything."

"No, seriously, you don't."

"Uh huh, I totally do. You can't prove I don't!"

"I can't prove a teacup isn't orbiting Pluto either, nor can you prove that I'm not getting advice from a large invisible rabbit named Harvey-but they are both so unlikely as to be considered untrue, and so is your invisible friend that controls everything."

"But what if I'm right?"

"But you're not."

"No, I totally am. I have an invisible friend."

"No, you don't."

50 pages later-

"Seriously, I do."

and on and on and on and on


You win the internetz.

You do have to think beyond the bible. My guess is the bible gives us about 1% of the big picture. And if someone dedicated their whole life to it, they might could figure out another 1%.

When the "Big Bang" happened, could God have just looked over and said "Hey?! This might be fun!"
:D

God is an IMMORTAL. Is your tiny little golf ball sized matter immortal? :p

Mine is, perhaps I'm just lucky though.

God created the universe.
Prove it
It is almost impossible for the WHOLE universe to be made by coincidence.
So it is possible.
Also where the heck did the matter that caused the big bang come from?
Beats me

Ah yes. I think there are two outcomes for this thread. Either we spam this thread so much right from the beginning that there is no hope for it ever going back to the original topic leading to a quick death to this thread, or someone makes one controversial comment that erupts into a massive 50 page shit storm.Star Wars is better.
They have these (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/ssd/ssd1l.gif).

God is an IMMORTAL. Is your tiny little golf ball sized matter immortal? :p

Ok, even if we do somehow prove that there is a higher power, the next question would be, which religion is the right one?

You know, lemmings don't actually do that; Lemmings are actually accomplished swimmers, and will often leap into the sea to complete their migration, rather than for mass-suicide. In fact, it turns out that the documentary that heavily popularized the suicide-myth was actually staged, with workers hurling lemmings off the cliff for the camera.

Was I the only one who found the bold part funny?

The biggest flaw I see in the 'God' arguement is the implied assumtion by most that 'God' is defined as an entity, a sentinent being capable of thinking caring and planning in the human method. That's highly presumptuous and somewhat egocentric of humanity as a whole. I don't even like the term 'supreme being' because I'm unconvinced that whatever lies behind the creation is a 'being' at all.

God is an IMMORTAL. Is your tiny little golf ball sized matter immortal? :p

My imaginary friend can kick your imaginary friend's ass.

Was I the only one who found the bold part funny?I grinned.

I'd have said cos they have THESE: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/saber-lores.jpg

Ok, even if we do somehow prove that there is a higher power, the next question would be, which religion is the right one?

You're jumping ahead...

You're jumping ahead...

Yea yea...I've seen this movie before, I'm just fast forwarding to the good parts.

You do have to think beyond the bible. My guess is the bible gives us about 1% of the big picture. And if someone dedicated their whole life to it, they might could figure out another 1%.

When the "Big Bang" happened, could God have just looked over and said "Hey?! This might be fun!"
:D

I do believe that there could've been a big bang but God would've created that too.

I'd have said cos they have THESE: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/saber-lores.jpgI like the Star Wars ships better. :p
Especially the Star Dreadnoughts.

You guys are all totally wrong. Pirates totally kick ninjas' asses.

I'd have said cos they have THESE: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/saber-lores.jpg

Please, Star Trek has phasers. Phasers (guns) beats Light Sabers (Swords) any day.

I do believe that there could've been a big bang but God would've created that too.

So who/what created god?

Please, Star Trek has phasers. Phasers (guns) beats Light Sabers (Swords) any day.The DC-17 beats the "phasers" any day. Assault rifle, sniper rifle, and anti-armor, all in one nice little piece of kit.

So who/what created god?

Maybe God has always been?

Please, Star Trek has phasers. Phasers (guns) beats Light Sabers (Swords) any day.

Seriously? Come on, if a saber can whack aside a high-energy light-speed blaster bolt, then what the heck is a slow-as-hell bit of sedative going to do?

Seriously? Come on, if a saber can whack aside a high-energy light-speed blaster bolt, then what the heck is a slow-as-hell bit of sedative going to do?
Seriously.

So who/what created god?

We as humans can not fathom that there is a being that has always been here.

We as humans can not fathom that there is a being that has always been here.
Hmm.
Sounds like another variation of "I dunno."

I dunno, I'm fathoming it right now. It's not really that hard, just say to yourself "There is a being that has always been there." Problem solved.

Of course, understanding it doesn't make it true, so i guess we're back to square one.

If you can't fathom it, then how can you stand there and blindly explain it to us.

Oooooh, good one.

We as humans can not fathom that there is a being that has always been here.

So maybe we as humans cannot fathom that the universe has always been there?

We as humans can not fathom that there is a being that has always been here.Time does happen to be a human invention. Infinite time means that it never ends.
We can obviously comprehend infinity, if we invented the concept.

If you can't fathom it, then how can you stand there and blindly explain it to us.
Faith.

Aka "Someone else said it."

Hmm.
Sounds like another variation of "I dunno."

If u say so...but i will leave you with this. Psalms 53:1- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

I do believe that there could've been a big bang but God would've created that too.

Possibly. Maybe what we understand as a universe is something God has done millions of times over. If God did create the big bang, then it seems logical to assume he is on a quest of understanding. That would be a good reason.

If God is real then believing he hears what everyone says to him is not that hard. It's just multi-tasking. :D

He does answer every single prayer. But sometimes the answer is no. ;)

Faith.

Aka "Someone else said it."

If u say so...but i will leave you with this. Psalms 53:1- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
I rest my case.

Seriously.

I mean, yeah, let's be real about this, anyway, one only needs to shout Expelliarmus for both the phaser and the lightsaber to be useless.

Maybe God has always been?

If it is possible for god to always have existed why is it not possible for the matter for the big bang to always have existed?

If u say so...but i will leave you with this. Psalms 53:1- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

I leave with with 6:66 from the Book of Scott - "The weak and the deluded sayeth in their heart, "There is a God".

Ah, but I have yet see anybody in this thread actually say that there isn't a God (Well...okay, somebody did on Page 1, but we won't talk about that), all we've really done is question why you're saying there is one.

If u say so...but i will leave you with this. Psalms 53:1- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."Ah, the bible. Another human invention.
Here's an idea for you to consider.
Humans invented God, as a "security blanket".
Not claiming that it is so, but it's an interesting idea.

If u say so...but i will leave you with this. Psalms 53:1- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

So only fools don't follow blind faith.


Alright.

I mean, yeah, let's be real about this, anyway, one only needs to shout Expelliarmus for both the phaser and the lightsaber to be useless.

Oh, please; Ben waves his hand and suddenly Harry, Ron, and every other British kid with a wand are suddenly looking for a different pair of 'droids.

We as humans can not fathom that there is a being that has always been here.
Wow, you've really advanced the discussion there...
Hmm.
Sounds like another variation of "I dunno."
Exactly
I dunno, I'm fathoming it right now. It's not really that hard, just say to yourself "There is a being that has always been there." Problem solved.

Of course, understanding it doesn't make it true, so i guess we're back to square one.
:)

If it is possible for god to always have existed why is it not possible for the matter for the big bang to always have existed?

Who says the two are mutually exclusive?

Ah, the bible. Another human invention.
Here's an idea for you to consider.
Humans invented God, as a "security blanket".
Not claiming that it is so, but it's an interesting idea.

The bible was the original way of mass control of the population.

Just think, you have these guys going around saying "Look, if you do this, you are going to this place called hell. If you think you suffer now, well buddy, you're fucked if you go to hell. And you know why you follow this? Because there's this all knowing being up there in the sky watching your every move."

God is just like Santa Claus.

If it is possible for god to always have existed why is it not possible for the matter for the big bang to always have existed?
Because an all powerful God can create the universe, but only in 6 days, if it takes him any longer, then obviously the whole God thing is a big lie, duh!:p

Who says the two are mutually exclusive?

Well, TI seems to be implying it...

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Your ignorance doesn't qualify as a debate.

Because an all powerful God can create the universe, but only in 6 days, if it takes him any longer, then obviously the whole God thing is a big lie, duh!:p

What?

Because an all powerful God can create the universe, but only in 6 days, if it takes him any longer, then obviously the whole God thing is a big lie, duh!:pJust for the lulz, right? :p

The bible was the original way of mass control of the population.

Just think, you have these guys going around saying "Look, if you do this, you are going to this place called hell. If you think you suffer now, well buddy, you're fucked if you go to hell. And you know why you follow this? Because there's this all knowing being up there in the sky watching your every move."

God is just like Santa Claus.There does happen to be a very long time before the invention of the bible when people were controlled rather easily by force of arms, and fear. :)

Well, TI seems to be implying it...

I think Kat said it best when she said that Science explains the How, Religion explain the why. I believe that science and religion and co-exist, they just have to adapt to their proper roles.

If u say so...but i will leave you with this. Psalms 53:1- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

unfortunately, the bible tends not to be an unbiased source on the subject.

unfortunately, the bible tends not to be an unbiased source on the subject.

The validity of the Bible is also suspect.

There does happen to be a very long time before the invention of the bible when people were controlled rather easily by force of arms, and fear. :)Ah, But religion is soooo much easier than force....

I think Kat said it best when she said that Science explains the How, Religion explain the why. I believe that science and religion and co-exist, they just have to adapt to their proper roles.

No argument here

Just for the lulz, right? :p

There does happen to be a very long time before the invention of the bible when people were controlled rather easily by force of arms, and fear. :)

Yeah but when the bible came around, the population was getting kind of large at that point and able to rebel if pushed far enough. The bible is the pacifistic way of controlling the masses. And plus it gave them hope because that guy in the sky loved them too.

Yeah but when the bible came around, the population was getting kind of large at that point and able to rebel if pushed far enough. The bible is the pacifistic way of controlling the masses. And plus it gave them hope because that guy in the sky loved them too.

pacifistic? the crusades and inquisitions beg to differ.

Yeah but when the bible came around, the population was getting kind of large at that point and able to rebel if pushed far enough. The bible is the pacifistic way of controlling the masses. And plus it gave them hope because that guy in the sky loved them too.God is now known as "that guy in the sky".
Win.

Star Wars is better.
They have these (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/ssd/ssd1l.gif).

Flying Pizza Slices FTW.

God is now known as "that guy in the sky".
Win.

Yea, he's getting more laxed in his later years. First it was Yahweh, then it was God, then it was The Big Cheese, and now it's "That guy in the sky"

pacifistic? the crusades and inquisitions beg to differ.

No see now that's when the people in control put a spin on the religion that the masses so happened to love.

I mean pacifistic in the sense that the masses are controlled without force.

I think Kat said it best when she said that Science explains the How, Religion explain the why. I believe that science and religion and co-exist, they just have to adapt to their proper roles.Religion is an attempt to explain the why... unfortunately for the most part it is inflexable in it's attempt and far too easily corruptable for human gain...

pacifistic? the crusades and inquisitions beg to differ.Roman Catholics are teh EBILEST Christians, evar.

The problem is, in the end, that there is no argument for god that can't just as easily be turned into an argument for no god at all.

If u say so...but i will leave you with this. Psalms 53:1- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

Dammit, I forgot the "I got this book that totally says so" round...

This is a post where atheists and christians can debate about certain topics. I am a christian and i will start the debate. The universe was obviously created i mean how did this all happen by chance? It just doesn't make sense to me.

A: Again?

B: What about the rest of us?

lol awesome the ridiculous thread devolved into ridiculousness . . .how bout that.

Roman Catholics are teh EBILEST Christians, evar.
You make baby Kat sad.

If u say so...but i will leave you with this. Psalms 53:1- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

and I leave you with this. ""why exactly is it so easy for you to believe? Scared of the world?" -by me

Ah, but I have yet see anybody in this thread actually say that there isn't a God (Well...okay, somebody did on Page 1, but we won't talk about that), all we've really done is question why you're saying there is one.

That was yours truely.

If u say so...but i will leave you with this. Psalms 53:1- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

"Stupid people believe in gods." - Me, the Christian and Atheists debate thread

There, it's written down so it must be true.

You make baby Kat sad....Sorry? :eek:

"Stupid people believe in gods." - Me, the Christian and Atheists debate thread

There, it's written down so it must be true.

lol

If you can't fathom it, then how can you stand there and blindly explain it to us.

I always think I should form us a region or a club or something...but I don't know what I'd call it...

B: What about the rest of us?

Don't be silly. The whole world is made up solely of atheists and Christians. I mean, either you believe in the Biblical god, or you don't believe in anything - duh. :rolleyes:

If it is possible for god to always have existed why is it not possible for the matter for the big bang to always have existed?

If you're going to violate known laws of physics it helps to have magic as an excuse.

I always think I should form us a region or a club or something...but I don't know what I'd call it...

The religion of Evein?

Don't be silly. The whole world is made up solely of atheists and Christians. I mean, either you believe in the Biblical god, or you don't believe in anything - duh. :rolleyes:

But....what about my Pagan friends? :(

Don't be silly. The whole world is made up solely of atheists and Christians. I mean, either you believe in the Biblical god, or you don't believe in anything - duh. :rolleyes:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1257/546592422_63808a1336.jpg?v=0
You make me a sad Buddha. :(

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1257/546592422_63808a1336.jpg?v=0
You make me a sad Buddha. :(

That's a scary Buddha... :(

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1257/546592422_63808a1336.jpg?v=0
You make me a sad Buddha. :(

Stop pretending you exist. You are clearly imaginary.

That's a scary Buddha... :(Sad Buddha is scary? :eek:
:(

Stop pretending you exist. You are clearly imaginary.But what about the millions of Buddhist around the world?
Are they now "non-existent" Buddhas, too? :(

Stop pretending you exist. You are clearly imaginary.

Then, my Pagan friends are imaginary too?! :eek:

But what about the millions of Buddhist around the world?
Are they now "non-existent" Buddhas, too? :(

Obviously! What are you going to claim next, that obvious myths like "Hindus" or "Jews" or even "agnostics" exist, too? Pssh!

Don't be silly. The whole world is made up solely of atheists and Christians. I mean, either you believe in the Biblical god, or you don't believe in anything - duh. :rolleyes:So that's why everyone ignores my post's on these type of threads... I don't exist:eek:

What?

If you don't believe in the Bible you're an atheist, if God didn't create the whole world in 6 days 6,000 years ago then it didn't happen.

Likewise, if a translation of a translation of someone's letters contradicts the translation of a translation of someone else's historical writings, then obviously no God anywhere ever existed.

Obviously! What are you going to claim next, that obvious myths like "Hindus" or "Jews" or even "agnostics" exist, too? Pssh!But-but-but-!
Sad Buddha is sad now. :(

So that's why everyone ignores my post's on these type of threads... I don't exist:eek:

Who said that? Must be the wind...anyways back to the debate.

If you don't believe in the Bible you're an atheist, if God didn't create the whole world in 6 days 6,000 years ago then it didn't happen.

Likewise, if a translation of a translation of someone's letters contradicts the translation of a translation of someone else's historical writings, then obviously no God anywhere ever existed.

Exactly! Finally, someone with a bit of common sense about this. ;)

Exactly! Finally, someone with a bit of common sense about this. ;)Common sense in General?
...How much longer 'till 12/22/2012?

I would like to scold pages 1&2 for forgetting to bring up Cake v. Pie.

Common sense in General?
...How much longer 'till 12/22/2012?

I thought it was the 21st?

I would like to scold pages 1&2 for forgetting to bring up Cake v. Pie.

Good pie beats good cake. However, bad cake is better than bad pie, as there is nothing more wretched and disappointing then bad pie.

I thought it was the 21st?Why do you think I'm waiting for the 22nd? :p

Why do you think I'm waiting for the 22nd? :p

AHA!

Good show.

What if god was an extraterrestrial and we're all one big science experiment?

Then god technically does exist, and probably does watch us all the time along with the rest of his species. Then they select the best ones and take them to "heaven" where they end up becoming slaves that build high tech blenders.

Or something.




That's just as far fetched as saying God exists.

So, I am pretty sure the creation of the universe is unknown, as it has existed forever- regardless of its form. There is no way to find the truth of how everything came to be, but there is a way to believe you can.

You know, while I agree that Science attempts to explain the "how," I'm very skeptical of the idea that religion explains the "why" for several reasons:

1) What method does religion use to do this? I honestly do not understand how a given religious belief is anymore likely to be correct than just blind guessing, or even making it up yourself.
Essentially, I don't see how religion can claim to be capable of answering "why" without having some why that it arrives at that "why."

2) Religion that does stick purely to the "why" is extremely rare. Almost all religions make empirical claims. For example, (most) Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead 3 days after his death. That's not just a matter of "why," but a statement of fact (one that I happen to think is not accurate.)

3) lastly, I'm not sure we can say that there is a "why?" I mean, is "for what purpose does the universe exist?" more meaningful than "for what purpose does the rust on this piece of metal exist?" I would say that it doesn't necessarily exist for a purpose at all, it just exists.

You know, while I agree that Science attempts to explain the "how," I'm very skeptical of the idea that religion explains the "why"

and, of course, science is always going on about 'why'. it's what it does.

You know, while I agree that Science attempts to explain the "how," I'm very skeptical of the idea that religion explains the "why" for several reasons:

1) What method does religion use to do this? I honestly do not understand how a given religious belief is anymore likely to be correct than just blind guessing, or even making it up yourself.
Essentially, I don't see how religion can claim to be capable of answering "why" without having some why that it arrives at that "why."

2) Religion that does stick purely to the "why" is extremely rare. Almost all religions make empirical claims. For example, (most) Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead 3 days after his death. That's not just a matter of "why," but a statement of fact (one that I happen to think is not accurate.)

3) lastly, I'm not sure we can say that there is a "why?" I mean, is "for what purpose does the universe exist?" more meaningful than "for what purpose does the rust on this piece of metal exist?" I would say that it doesn't necessarily exist for a purpose at all, it just exists.What I find incredible is that some people will openly ridicule certain newer religions and their fantastic beliefs (scientologists or mormons anyone?) but give total credence to the fantastic tales of their own religion just because they have a few thousand years of retelling on them.

What I find incredible is that some people will openly ridicule certain newer religions and their fantastic beliefs (scientologists or mormons anyone?) but give total credence to the fantastic tales of their own religion just because they have a few thousand years of retelling on them."We're older, we must be right!"
Hm.

What I find incredible is that some people will openly ridicule certain newer religions and their fantastic beliefs (scientologists or mormons anyone?) but give total credence to the fantastic tales of their own religion just because they have a few thousand years of retelling on them.

To be fair, scientology is an obvious scam. No other religion makes you pay tons of money before it even tells you what theyre about, nor does any other religion (to my knowledge) charge you for the spiritual healing it promises to do.

I take the view that if god exists then it is just another creature in the universe. And if what its followers say about it are true then we are facing a major threat. If god really does exist we have to find the technology to restrict it to nature reserves where we can admire it in safety.

A: Again?

B: What about the rest of us?

We don't count to TI. We probably don't count to the Wars/Trek and ninjas/pirates factions, either. Sigh.

Obviously! What are you going to claim next, that obvious myths like "Hindus" or "Jews" or even "agnostics" exist, too? Pssh!
Actually, we are the source of the matter from which the universe was created. Think about it. Accounts for a lot.

This is a post where atheists and christians can debate about certain topics. I am a christian and i will start the debate. The universe was obviously created i mean how did this all happen by chance? It just doesn't make sense to me.Haven't seen ya in too long, sweety.
;)

This thread is an instant classic.

Only because it was already a classic, like, 10 months ago.

This is a post where atheists and christians can debate about certain topics. I am a christian and i will start the debate. The universe was obviously created i mean how did this all happen by chance? It just doesn't make sense to me.

You must be new.


I for one, hate all the fucking Xtians vs. Atheists debates. What about Hindus vs. Agnostics or Celtic Pagans vs. Muslims? There is so much variety that we could be having for our stupid debates. It's like if I had hot dogs for dinner every night. It would get old. Why not have say, spaghetti carbonara or perhaps a nice tasty steak? Or maybe some pesto or good old mac and cheese? Why limit ourselves, when there are so many more possibilities to choose from?

Only because it was already a classic, like, 10 months ago.Not only an instant classic, but destined for the home release, straight-to-DVD classic too!

I always think I should form us a region or a club or something...but I don't know what I'd call it...

Eric.

Yea, he's getting more laxed in his later years. First it was Yahweh, then it was God, then it was The Big Cheese, and now it's "That guy in the sky"

Next moniker: "That one".

Good pie beats good cake. However, bad cake is better than bad pie, as there is nothing more wretched and disappointing then bad pie.

This is so terribly true. I mean, you get supermarket cake, you know what to expect--it's not good, but it won't kill you. Crappy pie is like some sort of corrosive molding jelly gummed to the roof of your mouth.

What I find incredible is that some people will openly ridicule certain newer religions and their fantastic beliefs (scientologists or mormons anyone?) but give total credence to the fantastic tales of their own religion just because they have a few thousand years of retelling on them.

I find it more incredible that people study Greek/Roman/Norse/Celtic/Egyptian/whatever "mythology" with no apparent realization that the ideas of 2,000 years ago aren't any "sillier" or fantastic than the ideas of today.

But seriously, scientology shouldn't even get a mention.

Next moniker: "That one".:hail:

I was gonna go with "Jealous", but i like yours better. :)

You guys are all totally wrong. Pirates totally kick ninjas' asses.

Agreed. Partially due to the law of diminishing Ninja returns.

1 Ninja: Nigh invincible.

100 Ninjas: Pathetically weak.

what's to debate? the're both wrong. sort of like two of the six blind men with their elephant.

Seriously? Come on, if a saber can whack aside a high-energy light-speed blaster bolt, then what the heck is a slow-as-hell bit of sedative going to do?

Lol, phasers hella fail.

Eric.As in ... CToaN occupying a certain poster by name of Eric?

As in ... CToaN occupying a certain poster by name of Eric?

Are you implying that CToaN may, in fact, be Captain Howdy?

Are you implying that CToaN may, in fact, be Captain Howdy?Shit, was that a secret? :eek:

I like guns...they're shiny and stuff. What does this button do?

Shit, was that a secret? :eek:

Now, the more important question...is it the Captain Howdy of more etherial fame (which would be somewhat fitting for this thread), or of the more physical nature?

I know CToaN has said he looks like a walrus...but I could see him looking like this:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b31/coma667/strangelandcaptainhowdy.jpg

Of course, if it was the former option...I suppose I couldn't see him at all...



edit: I am so proud that my 9,000 post was considering the possibilites of CToaN being an incarnation of Pazuzu

I accidentally the whole universe.

Now, the more important question...is it the Captain Howdy of more etherial fame (which would be somewhat fitting for this thread), or of the more physical nature?Hmmm ... i have a strong suspicion you're mocking me ...

I know CToaN has said he looks like a walrus...but I could see him looking like this:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b31/coma667/strangelandcaptainhowdy.jpgI thought he might look just a little more like this ...
http://www.dmrphotos.com/live/skinny-puppy_0104.jpg
or
http://platial.com/img/5285cfbb843188633970aa9c4050e761.jpg

Of course, if it was the former option...I suppose I couldn't see him at all...Have to go with touch. We should all be feeling CToaN occupy us ALL now!

edit: I am so proud that my 9,000 post was considering the possibilites of CToaN being an incarnation of PazuzuWhat an ungrateful gargoyle.
*shakes head*

Hmmm ... i have a strong suspicion you're mocking me ...
I thought he might look just a little more like this ...
http://www.dmrphotos.com/live/skinny-puppy_0104.jpg
or
http://platial.com/img/5285cfbb843188633970aa9c4050e761.jpg
Have to go with touch. We should all be feeling CToaN occupy us ALL now!
Have I stumbled upon an obscure reference that Brevious didn't pick up on?!

it's true! the 9,000 post is the promised land!

(okay, now that may have been mocking you:p)

I was just trying to figure out if CToaN would be the Captain Howdy of Exorcist fame, or from Dee Snider's Strangeland

Interestingly, the "touch" response works for both, on equally creepy levels. Either CToaN will be posessing us and making us vomit pea soup, or he'll be piercing us through our genitals and raping us only after sewing our eyes and mouths shut...

This is an interesting discussion now. Of course, the question is, do I really exist or not? I mean, sure-I can tell you I exist, but without a name how would one know for sure? And there are some logical problems-surely after all this time someone could have thought of a name for me at the very least, or why not utilize the already existent nickname? As already raised, one could try and touch me to see if I'm real, but then there is my only commandment that makes such a thing difficult an my existence a paradox-that being, "Don't touch me."

It's a puzzle.

This thread fails epically.

Mostly because it's about the big sky-daddy.

Can anyone here systematically prove or disprove the existence of a Creator? Beyond the shadow of a doubt?

Do we have a need for a Creator? Does He/She/It have a need for us?

Failing that, what is the basis of morailty?

An Atheist in the Woods

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.

As he continued walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes. Turning to look, he saw a 7 foot grizzly charging towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. Looking over his shoulder he saw that the bear was closing in on him. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear raising his paw to take a swipe at him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out: "Oh my God!..."

Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. It was then that a bright light shone upon the man and a voice came out of the sky saying,

"You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others that I don't exist and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps, could you make the BEAR a Christian?"

"Very well," said the voice. The light went out. And the sounds of the forest resumed.

The bear lowered his paw, bowed his head and spoke,

"Lord, bless this food which I am about to receive and for which I am truly thankful."

An Atheist in the Woods

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.

As he continued walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes. Turning to look, he saw a 7 foot grizzly charging towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. Looking over his shoulder he saw that the bear was closing in on him. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear raising his paw to take a swipe at him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out: "Oh my God!..."

Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. It was then that a bright light shone upon the man and a voice came out of the sky saying,

"You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others that I don't exist and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps, could you make the BEAR a Christian?"

"Very well," said the voice. The light went out. And the sounds of the forest resumed.

The bear lowered his paw, bowed his head and spoke,

"Lord, bless this food which I am about to receive and for which I am truly thankful."

lol funny :D

Can anyone here systematically prove or disprove the existence of a Creator? Beyond the shadow of a doubt?

Do we have a need for a Creator? Does He/She/It have a need for us?

Failing that, what is the basis of morailty?

1)no
2)no
3) Morality is not an objective thing it varies from person to person and is based on life experience, teachings and societal mems. Thus the basis for morality is, in fact, ourselves.

When having them over for dinner, Atheists are cooked well done and served with white wine, while Christians are cooked rare and served with Red.

Atheist/Christian debate, over.

God created the universe. It is almost impossible for the WHOLE universe to be made by coincidence. Also where the heck did the matter that caused the big bang come from?

Where did God come from? Both are as unlikely as each other, however, I can see the universe and know it exists.

It's been awhile TI what happened?

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"

It was on the side of a bus so it must be true.

This is SAD that you think that Rambhtan I can see your getting nowhere with your life.

Buses never lie

Buses never lie

Except the number 21 to Town - every 15 minutes my arse.. tricky bus.

Dictionary definition of Christianity.

"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree"

In other news...as Nietzsche revealed, God is dead. What he forgot to mention however is that, for being an egotistical bastard and demanding that everyone worship him or suffer eternal damnation, God went to Hell.

Except the number 21 to Town - every 15 minutes my arse.. tricky bus.

:D it isn't lying it is just not very good at telling the time. :p

:D it isn't lying it is just not very good at telling the time. :p

Still doesn't excuse it, perhaps if it were one of them bendy-bus things it would amuse me enough to forgive its lack of time skillsz... perhaps.
:rolleyes:

What I find incredible is that some people will openly ridicule certain newer religions and their fantastic beliefs (scientologists or mormons anyone?) but give total credence to the fantastic tales of their own religion just because they have a few thousand years of retelling on them.

The only reason I slam Scientology is because well, Scientology is a scam, nothing more, nothing less.

At least when the Church takes your money, it goes towards helping the local community.

Dictionary definition of Christianity.

"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree"

In other news...as Nietzsche revealed, God is dead. What he forgot to mention however is that, for being an egotistical bastard and demanding that everyone worship him or suffer eternal damnation, God went to Hell.

Game, set, and match.

I love religious debates. They be funnie.

Buses never lie

Ahhhh but bus drivers do all the time!

This is a post where atheists and christians can debate about certain topics. I am a christian and i will start the debate. The universe was obviously created i mean how did this all happen by chance? It just doesn't make sense to me.

But was it created the way the Bible states ?

After all, while we can obviously not "test" for God, we can for instance test if the Sun is truly younger than the Earth and Fruit bearing trees, as Genesis claims.
Result of these tests: the Sun is much older than the Earth. Oh dear. Poor Genesis.

We can examine if there really was a global flood, killing off almost all life except that contained in the Ark, a few thousand years ago.
Result: while we can indeed see there have been plenty of floods throughout history (silly humans.. always choosing to live near water..), the global one the Bible mentions has failed to leave any indications of it ever having existed.

We can even wonder why we, the crown of Creation, live in a spiral arm of the insignificant milky way - no where near the center of anything.

God created the universe. It is almost impossible for the WHOLE universe to be made by coincidence. Also where the heck did the matter that caused the big bang come from?

Yes, Japan create the whole universe. Make perfecto sense. :hail:

For something to be true it would have to be agree upon by all culture (if it were also scientifically true), and since Christianity is state religion in only some place, it is not yet TURE.

But! If Christian take over WORLD: It is true.

Yes, Japan create the whole universe. Make perfecto sense. :hail:
:rolleyes:

Hate to tell you this, but Prime Minister Aso speaks English fluently.

Ah ha... but I don't :)

So when is Tucker Island going to respond to us again?

For something to be true it would have to be agree upon by all culture (if it were also scientifically true), and since Christianity is state religion in only some place, it is not yet TURE.

But! If Christian take over WORLD: It is true.

Man that is a strange defintion of truth you have there!

But was it created the way the Bible states ?

After all, while we can obviously not "test" for God, we can for instance test if the Sun is truly younger than the Earth and Fruit bearing trees, as Genesis claims.
Result of these tests: the Sun is much older than the Earth. Oh dear. Poor Genesis.

We can examine if there really was a global flood, killing off almost all life except that contained in the Ark, a few thousand years ago.
Result: while we can indeed see there have been plenty of floods throughout history (silly humans.. always choosing to live near water..), the global one the Bible mentions has failed to leave any indications of it ever having existed.

We can even wonder why we, the crown of Creation, live in a spiral arm of the insignificant milky way - no where near the center of anything.

The global one hey? And what exactly was "The World" to the Europeans living in the 12th century? What was "the world" to those living in a small area in the Arabian Gulf? Much smaller than the world of today. So it depends on how you look on it and there is evidence (before you say source I won't be able to give you one till after Christmas because unfortunately I left the archaeological book at my parents place and so won't be able to cite it for you) of a very large flood occurring near the site of Ancient Babylon a few thousand years ago which could very well be the flood that was talked about. Now you may say it can't be that one because that is evidence blah blah. But it all depends on how you want to take Genesis, so while "The world" of today is the Earth and could be argued that "The World" our world that is extends past the planet and into the solar system, the milky way or even other galaxies, "The World" of those living a few thousand years ago their world was different to ours.

For something to be true it would have to be agree upon by all culture (if it were also scientifically true), and since Christianity is state religion in only some place, it is not yet TURE.

But! If Christian take over WORLD: It is true.

Say what?

The global one hey? And what exactly was "The World" to the Europeans living in the 12th century? What was "the world" to those living in a small area in the Arabian Gulf? Much smaller than the world of today. So it depends on how you look on it and there is evidence (before you say source I won't be able to give you one till after Christmas because unfortunately I left the archaeological book at my parents place and so won't be able to cite it for you) of a very large flood occurring near the site of Ancient Babylon a few thousand years ago which could very well be the flood that was talked about.

Which eradicated all life on earth, despite being limited to Babylon ?
If not - the whole animals on the Ark thing was rather pointless.

The global one hey? And what exactly was "The World" to the Europeans living in the 12th century? What was "the world" to those living in a small area in the Arabian Gulf? Much smaller than the world of today. So it depends on how you look on it and there is evidence (before you say source I won't be able to give you one till after Christmas because unfortunately I left the archaeological book at my parents place and so won't be able to cite it for you) of a very large flood occurring near the site of Ancient Babylon a few thousand years ago which could very well be the flood that was talked about. Now you may say it can't be that one because that is evidence blah blah. But it all depends on how you want to take Genesis, so while "The world" of today is the Earth and could be argued that "The World" our world that is extends past the planet and into the solar system, the milky way or even other galaxies, "The World" of those living a few thousand years ago their world was different to ours.
This would be so much more meaningful if it weren't for people touting that because it says global in the bible, it was a global flood. Mainly young earth creationists and KJV adherents.

The global one hey? And what exactly was "The World" to the Europeans living in the 12th century? What was "the world" to those living in a small area in the Arabian Gulf? Much smaller than the world of today.

What are you on about. The world is NOT larger than it was several thousands of years ago. Lets not forget that the bible mentions the 'Sphere of the world' so I can't really see your claim that biblical writers did not know of this, washing. Besides if the Bible is divinely inspired, then I guess God did not know at that time just how large the world was?

This would be so much more meaningful if it weren't for people touting that because it says global in the bible, it was a global flood. Mainly young earth creationists and KJV adherents.

Since we are in a creationist thread, that seems fitting ;)

God created the universe. It is almost impossible for the WHOLE universe to be made by coincidence. Also where the heck did the matter that caused the big bang come from?

Actually, the bolded part is true. It's called the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Basically, a lot of constants in our universe seem to be fine tuned so that sentient life could evolve. Some people use this an argument for theism, but as others pointed out, it could have come about without divine intervention.

Some postulate an infinite multiverse, and we happen to live in one of the very few universe where life could even possibly exist.

Some postulate that the universe continually expands and then contracts into itself, and we happen to be in one of the very few expansions that could possibly support life.

Some people think we just got really lucky.

The funny thing is that we can't test any of these secular explanations anymore than we can test the theistic one.

Actually, the bolded part is true. It's called the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Basically, a lot of constants in our universe seem to be fine tuned so that sentient life could evolve. Some people use this an argument for theism, but as others pointed out, it could have come about without divine intervention.

Some postulate an infinite multiverse, and we happen to live in one of the very few universe where life could even possibly exist.

Some postulate that the universe continually expands and then contracts into itself, and we happen to be in one of the very few expansions that could possibly support life.

Some people think we just got really lucky.

The funny thing is that we can't test any of these secular explanations anymore than we can test the theistic one.

What I like about this is of course....

I mean yes of course all of the conditions here are good to support life, otherwise we wouldn't be here huh!

Which eradicated all life on earth, despite being limited to Babylon ?
If not - the whole animals on the Ark thing was rather pointless.

It may have been pointless, but they thought that it would eradicate all life in the world.

What are you on about. The world is NOT larger than it was several thousands of years ago. Lets not forget that the bible mentions the 'Sphere of the world' so I can't really see your claim that biblical writers did not know of this, washing. Besides if the Bible is divinely inspired, then I guess God did not know at that time just how large the world was?

I am not saying that the world has gotten bigger but what I am saying is that what people know of their physical world has gotten bigger. In the sense that what we know of our world has gotten bigger. Think of it this way those hearing this story in the 12th century might have thought of the land being flooded would include Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and maybe even India, whereas those hearing it today would think of a global flood and think not only those places but the Americas, Australia, Asia and Antarctica. See what we know to constitute the world is larger even though it physically hasn't gotten larger. A group of people living in 5000 years ago may have only know the world to be what they could see perhaps their town and a few others nearby. And God which you know as well as I did not write the Bible.

This would be so much more meaningful if it weren't for people touting that because it says global in the bible, it was a global flood. Mainly young earth creationists and KJV adherents.

Well why do we always have to listen on their interpretation?

Since we are in a creationist thread, that seems fitting ;)

I thought we were in a stupid Christians vs Atheists thread?

I am not saying that the world has gotten bigger but what I am saying is that what people know of their physical world has gotten bigger. In the sense that what we know of our world has gotten bigger. Think of it this way those hearing this story in the 12th century might have thought of the land being flooded would include Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and maybe even India, whereas those hearing it today would think of a global flood and think not only those places but the Americas, Australia, Asia and Antarctica. See what we know to constitute the world is larger even though it physically hasn't gotten larger. A group of people living in 5000 years ago may have only know the world to be what they could see perhaps their town and a few others nearby. And God which you know as well as I did not write the Bible.

Yes indeed that is what you where saying. My point was really to deny this, as the claim is that the Bible is divinly inspired.

Yes indeed that is what you where saying. My point was really to deny this, as the claim is that the Bible is divinly inspired.

What do you mean by divinely inspired?

It may have been pointless, but they thought that it would eradicate all life in the world.

Who is they ? According to the Bible, God told Noah to built the Ark. Surely God knew better ?

But yes, stories about a flood that destroyed "everything" can be found throughout the world. To most people, home is the world.

I thought we were in a stupid Christians vs Atheists thread?

That is merely the title.The OP is Creationist.
Of course, we could try to elevate this topic above the drivel, as you are so valiantly trying (except for the "stupid" prefix when talking about Christians). Then again, we are quite far already. May be too late...

Ah ha... but I don't :)

So when is Tucker Island going to respond to us again?

He probably isn't going to, I'm surprised he responded as much as he did.

I wish he would though...

Of course, we could try to elevate this topic above the drivel, as you are so valiantly trying (except for the "stupid" prefix when talking about Christians). Then again, we are quite far already. May be too late...

Meh, it's fun toying with TI

Who is they ? According to the Bible, God told Noah to built the Ark. Surely God knew better ?

But yes, stories about a flood that destroyed "everything" can be found throughout the world. To most people, home is the world.

Yes God did tell Noah to build the ark otherwise he would could have drowned and died, so God did no better. As for the animals well maybe Noah wanted the animals of that area (not as some picture books show kangaroos and penguins) to be saved when his wife complained about the mess Noah may have claimed God said so. (That last bit is a joke) You know when I said they I meant Noah and his family IIRC (my bible is still packed) he had his sons with their wives on board also.

That is merely the title.The OP is Creationist.
Of course, we could try to elevate this topic above the drivel, as you are so valiantly trying (except for the "stupid" prefix when talking about Christians). Then again, we are quite far already. May be too late...

Excuse me it was meant to be a prefix to the thread title rather than a prefix to the Christians.

When having them over for dinner, Atheists are cooked well done and served with white wine, while Christians are cooked rare and served with Red.

Atheist/Christian debate, over.

Grilled or baked?

Well why do we always have to listen on their interpretation?Apart from them being the loudest, perhaps you're confusing "listening" and "refuting". I don't think all that many people disagree with your interpretation, which is probably why you've gotten the impression that no one cares.

Apart from them being the loudest, perhaps you're confusing "listening" and "refuting". I don't think all that many people disagree with your interpretation, which is probably why you've gotten the impression that no one cares.

What Laerod said

Apart from them being the loudest, perhaps you're confusing "listening" and "refuting". I don't think all that many people disagree with your interpretation, which is probably why you've gotten the impression that no one cares.

It wasn't a case of no one cares it was more of a my interpretation isn't meaningful because Young Creationists say otherwise.

What do you mean by divinely inspired?

Ummm errr inspired by the divine?:D

It wasn't a case of no one cares it was more of a my interpretation isn't meaningful because Young Creationists say otherwise.See, that's the thing, the "local flood" makes sense, and can probably be proven. No one want's to dispute that massive flooding never occurs. It's not meaningful in the sense no one is really disputing it in the first place. Except the YECs...

Ummm errr inspired by the divine?:D

:)

Well did God tell them what to write? Did he cause things to happen that were recorded and that is what makes it inspired?

See, that's the thing, the "local flood" makes sense, and can probably be proven. No one want's to dispute that massive flooding never occurs. It's not meaningful in the sense no one is really disputing it in the first place. Except the YECs...

Yes ok but then the Bible is correct when it says it flooded the world, however, that world was small back then, that it would only be considered to be a local flood now. So while the meanings of things have changed the Bible didn't change it remained the same wording as before (translation points not included in this spiel). But ok then, sometimes when you hear people syaing that the Bible is wrong because of the flood story and it didn't cover the world, I just like to point out why it may be correct.

EDIT: But it is late and I am off to bed now I wll see what people write tomorrow.

Yes ok but then the Bible is correct when it says it flooded the world, however, that world was small back then, that it would only be considered to be a local flood now. So while the meanings of things have changed the Bible didn't change it remained the same wording as before (translation points not included in this spiel). But ok then, sometimes when you hear people syaing that the Bible is wrong because of the flood story and it didn't cover the world, I just like to point out why it may be correct.Well it is, in that sense. It uses a false definition of "world", which makes a literal interpretation incorrect. But the same can be argued about the whole walking on water thing: Was he actually walking on water, or was it a colorful description of the common practice of followers carrying their leader over water?

I don't see why it's so hard to understand that the Bible was written thousands of years ago by wandering desert nomads with limited technology.

Even if the events recorded in the Bible actually happened, we can be fairly sure that the human recording of a divine event would be flawed.

:)

Well did God tell them what to write? Did he cause things to happen that were recorded and that is what makes it inspired?

Yes yes, God breathed into the minds of the authours, and thus they say, not my words ooh lord but yours.

Grilled or baked?
Debate On!!!

I don't see why it's so hard to understand that the Bible was written thousands of years ago by wandering desert nomads with limited technology.

Even if the events recorded in the Bible actually happened, we can be fairly sure that the human recording of a divine event would be flawed.
I don't get the technology connection in this. What does limited technology have to do with being able or not able to record an event accurately?

Also, what makes you think they were desert nomads? There were cities and towns in those days. Mystics made a habit of going into hermitage in the desert, but that didn't make them nomads. And the Moses/John the Baptist style mystics were not the main authors of the Bible.

Finally, what makes you think most of the books of the Bible were actually written during the times and in the places where their stories are set?

Why is it so easy for many to believe in no gods but one, and yet so hard for those same people to understand that atheists merely believe in one less than they do?

Why is it so easy for many to believe in no gods but one, and yet so hard for those same people to understand that atheists merely believe in one less than they do?
I think it's mostly just hard for some people to believe that other people think they might be wrong about something.

Why is it so easy for many to believe in no gods but one, and yet so hard for those same people to understand that atheists merely believe in one less than they do?

Umm it's not?

Umm it's not?

Actually, for many, yes it is (at least apparently)

I don't get the technology connection in this. What does limited technology have to do with being able or not able to record an event accurately?

Also, what makes you think they were desert nomads? There were cities and towns in those days. Mystics made a habit of going into hermitage in the desert, but that didn't make them nomads. And the Moses/John the Baptist style mystics were not the main authors of the Bible.

Finally, what makes you think most of the books of the Bible were actually written during the times and in the places where their stories are set?

The more limited the technology, the more limited you are in terms of how to record information. A community that had not developed the written word would rely on oral knowledge, while a society such as ours would be able to record an event (say, a woman turning into a pillar of salt) in many different mediums. Not only that, but we would be able to analyse the event using our technology to explain how something happened. The authors of the Bible were limited in their ability to scientifically analyse the events they recorded, and were also unable to record them in such a way as to allow future generations with more advanced technology to analyse them. All we have is written words that were penned by human minds, which are open to interpretation, bias, etc.

I don't know if they were desert nomads. Considering the timespan over which the Bible was written, I would actually assume that they had a variety of cultures over time. I was being a bit poetic there instead of literal. The point is that the technology and scientific understanding of these people was not such that we can expect lab reports about what happened in those ancient times.

Nor do I believe that most of those stories were written by those who apparently lived them. But even if they were and people had actually lived these interactions with the divine and wrote them down, we would still have subjective, flawed reports devoid of contemporary scientific methodology. When we intorduce the factor that the authors were probably somewhat removed from the action, we can see even more cause for flaws in the transcription of such divine events, if they occured.

Lets not forget that the bible mentions the 'Sphere of the world' so I can't really see your claim that biblical writers did not know of this, washing.

It doesn't. It mentions the disc of the world, so they thought it was flat.

It doesn't. It mentions the disc of the world, so they thought it was flat.

According to this website: http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html , the ancient Hebrews had no word for sphere. This would imply that either they were unaware of spheres which is plainly not true, or that they used the word 'circle' to describe spherical objects, which would mean that your interpretation is not necessarily correct.

The more limited the technology, the more limited you are in terms of how to record information. A community that had not developed the written word would rely on oral knowledge, while a society such as ours would be able to record an event (say, a woman turning into a pillar of salt) in many different mediums. Not only that, but we would be able to analyse the event using our technology to explain how something happened. The authors of the Bible were limited in their ability to scientifically analyse the events they recorded, and were also unable to record them in such a way as to allow future generations with more advanced technology to analyse them. All we have is written words that were penned by human minds, which are open to interpretation, bias, etc.

I don't know if they were desert nomads. Considering the timespan over which the Bible was written, I would actually assume that they had a variety of cultures over time. I was being a bit poetic there instead of literal. The point is that the technology and scientific understanding of these people was not such that we can expect lab reports about what happened in those ancient times.

Nor do I believe that most of those stories were written by those who apparently lived them. But even if they were and people had actually lived these interactions with the divine and wrote them down, we would still have subjective, flawed reports devoid of contemporary scientific methodology. When we intorduce the factor that the authors were probably somewhat removed from the action, we can see even more cause for flaws in the transcription of such divine events, if they occured.
While it is generally true that eyewitness reports are likely to be flawed, often they are not. To say that, without such things as cameras or whatnot, accounts of events cannot be taken as accurate is an assumption. It is just as reasonable to make the opposite assumption, namely that, in the absence of photographic or other physical evidence, we have no reason to think the accounts are not accurate.

I remind you of the various things that Herodotus wrote, which for centuries were assumed to be myths or fictional stories, which later research have shown to be in fact accurate accounts of real people or events.

My point is that, since the ancients did not have ways of recording events as they happened, such as film, we today have no means by which to declare their accounts either accurate or inaccurate.

This is why, to my mind, arguments over whether the Bible is "accurate" or not are pointless.

EDIT: To be entirely honest, I personally do not believe that the stories of the Bible were ever meant to be taken literally in any way at all, regardless of whether they refer to real places/people/events or not.

I am not an atheist, just a deist.

In my opinion there is no after-life; when one's eyes are put-out, there is nothing. I have lived life with and without prayer; I find prayer has no effect on anything (except as positive psychological support, which may help one recover from illness), and morality tends to impede one's success.

There may be a creator, but not one that has a morality anything like the human concept, and not one that performs miracles or answers prayers, or contradicts the laws of science.

While it is generally true that eyewitness reports are likely to be flawed, often they are not. To say that, without such things as cameras or whatnot, accounts of events cannot be taken as accurate is an assumption. It is just as reasonable to make the opposite assumption, namely that, in the absence of photographic or other physical evidence, we have no reason to think the accounts are not accurate.

I remind you of the various things that Herodotus wrote, which for centuries were assumed to be myths or fictional stories, which later research have shown to be in fact accurate accounts of real people or events.

My point is that, since the ancients did not have ways of recording events as they happened, such as film, we today have no means by which to declare their accounts either accurate or inaccurate.

This is why, to my mind, arguments over whether the Bible is "accurate" or not are pointless.

I immediately thought of Herodotus' description of the exhumation of Orestes. Over ten feet tall was the corpse.

It could very well be that they are describing things as accurately as possible. But they would be limited to the language of their culture in attempting to describe it. Imagine an Amazon aboriginal who has been lucky enough to avoid us who has then been shown a steam turbine. He may be able to describe it, but he would have to couch it in his terms, which would not clearly convey what is really happening in a steam turbine. The same can be said for anyone from a scientific paradigm being asked to describe a supernatural experience, or an ancient Hebrew trying to describe a divine intervention.

I immediately thought of Herodotus' description of the exhumation of Orestes. Over ten feet tall was the corpse.
More accurate than you think.

The History Channel did an interesting hour about ancient dinosaur tourism. "Giants' bones" were found all over the mediterranean in ancient times, and the Greeks and Romans even published travel guides to places where the curious could see the best specimens.

Since the ancients found these bones as a result of farming, mining, quarrying and building, they tended not to find the small or fragile bones, but rather the big ones such as leg bones vertebrae and ribs, which are typically not very different in shape from one large animal to another. Knowing perfectly well what a human femur looks like, when the Greeks found a bone that was the same shape but is 5-6 feet long, was it unreasonable for them to think it was a bone of a huge person?

And assuming that it probably was the bone of a huge person, they treated as such according to their culture -- they reburied it ceremonially and made a shrine to the dead "person."

And if there was a cultural legend associated with their area, then yes, they did take the opportunity to attach the unusual relic to their local story and use it to up the profile of their city/region. Not very different from what modern chambers of commerce and tourism boards do.

So, Herodotus's account of the exhumation -- and all the pomp and circumstance, with a temple dedicated to it, etc. -- of a set of remains identified as the legendary character Orestes, who turned out to have been 10 feet tall (according to his bones), was accurate. That event really happened.

It could very well be that they are describing things as accurately as possible. But they would be limited to the language of their culture in attempting to describe it. Imagine an Amazon aboriginal who has been lucky enough to avoid us who has then been shown a steam turbine. He may be able to describe it, but he would have to couch it in his terms, which would not clearly convey what is really happening in a steam turbine. The same can be said for anyone from a scientific paradigm being asked to describe a supernatural experience, or an ancient Hebrew trying to describe a divine intervention.
So? His account is still accurate as to the facts that he personally witnessed.

I'm not a doctor, but am I not able to give an accurate account of my symptoms to a doctor? I'm not an astronomer, but am I not able to give an accurate description of the stars I see at night?

Just how much do you expect factual evidence to account for?

Btw, you may be familiar with -- or if not, then interested in -- Dr. Paul Barber's book Vampires, Burial and Death, in which he explores vampire folklore and suggests, persuasively, that beliefs about vampires/revenants were based on very accurate observations of the processes of disease and the decomposition of corpses under various conditions. Just because a witnesses explanation of WHY something happened is not correct, does not mean that their account of WHAT happened is not accurate.

So who won the thread?

I vote for the OP, who had the good sense to fuck off and leave.

So who won the thread?

I vote for the OP, who had the good sense to fuck off and leave.

Not good sense TI has a history of posting and running...

Having read through the ensuing 217 posts, I think that makes a lot of sense!

More accurate than you think.

The History Channel did an interesting hour about ancient dinosaur tourism. ...That event really happened.

Exactly. All the events in the chain really happened, as far as we can tell. No one lied. Everyone attempted to explain the phenomena in the most rational way possible. And we still ended up with some flaws in the narrative. The flaws in the narrative (that it was actually Orestes' femur) do not discount the true and factual basis for such a claim.

So? His account is still accurate as to the facts that he personally witnessed....Just because a witnesses explanation of WHY something happened is not correct, does not mean that their account of WHAT happened is not accurate.

Yes. It is accurate. As accurate as possible using the language of the observer. With all the inherent limitations that come with that language.

According to this website: http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html , the ancient Hebrews had no word for sphere.
Your website is mistaken: duwr is the Hebrew for "ball", which they could have used, if they actually believed the world was a ball. Instead they describe it as a circle; the references to its "edges" make it plain that a flat circular disk is what they had in mind.

Exactly. All the events in the chain really happened, as far as we can tell. No one lied. Everyone attempted to explain the phenomena in the most rational way possible. And we still ended up with some flaws in the narrative. The flaws in the narrative (that it was actually Orestes' femur) do not discount the true and factual basis for such a claim.



Yes. It is accurate. As accurate as possible using the language of the observer. With all the inherent limitations that come with that language.
Then we are in agreement.

And considering this, then, does it not seem a little off base to criticize the Bible as being inaccurate?

I suggest that the mythological parts of the Bible's stories -- the parts that could never be proven or disproven, even if we had access to full and complete historical records and physical evidence -- are the parts that are most important parts of the book. The parts that people wrangle over whether they really happened or not are just window dressing for dramatic effect.

It kind of reminds me of a time when I had an artwork undergoing judgment for a competition. A spy in the judging session reported to me that my work (which came in 3rd), which depicted a gigantic anatomical figure standing in the midst of a busy city street with traffic flowing blindly all around it (an allegory of the artist's relationship to society), sparked a massive argument among the judges over which street the figure was standing on. Apparently, there was a huge fight over whether it was in Philadelphia or Chicago. It was just a generic street pulled from a 19th century engraving, and it was hardly the point of the work. But according to the person telling it to me, it had them shouting at each other for 45 minutes.

I don't see why a world wide flood is so implausible.
I mean, considering the polar ice caps and all, there is certainly enough water on earth to do so.

Then we are in agreement.

We often are. Great minds think alike. Small minds seldom differ.

And considering this, then, does it not seem a little off base to criticize the Bible as being inaccurate?

I find myself amused by the irony that the only people who believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally are fervent fundamentalists and fervent atheists.

I suggest that the mythological parts of the Bible's stories -- the parts that could never be proven or disproven, even if we had access to full and complete historical records and physical evidence -- are the parts that are most important parts of the book. ...But according to the person telling it to me, it had them shouting at each other for 45 minutes.

And I know people who turn to Yoda's words when they feel seduced by their anger.They intuitively realise, perhaps, that the veracity of the story is unimportant in a mythological sense. While your art critics get confused by the medium for the message.

They are the fools staring at the finger that points to the moon!

I don't see why a world wide flood is so implausible.
I mean, considering the polar ice caps and all, there is certainly enough water on earth to do so.

No, actually, there is not.

But try again.

Wait? Wut :D

I think NSG in general is this place :D

We often are. Great minds think alike. Small minds seldom differ.
Hm.... *makes note to self to think about that one some day*


I find myself amused by the irony that the only people who believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally are fervent fundamentalists and fervent atheists.
Funny, ain't they? :D


And I know people who turn to Yoda's words when they feel seduced by their anger.They intuitively realise, perhaps, that the veracity of the story is unimportant in a mythological sense. While your art critics get confused by the medium for the message.

They are the fools staring at the finger that points to the moon!
Funny you should put it that way, because this is the artwork in question:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30307570@N05/2842245320/

Funny, ain't they? :D

Not when there is a serious chance they can become president, vice-president or US senator.

The great flood is plausible. Ex. ground water, lakes, rivers, oceans, ice caps, and all the moisture in the air is A LOT of water.

The great flood is plausible. Ex. ground water, lakes, rivers, oceans, ice caps, and all the moisture in the air is A LOT of water.

Still not nearly enough.

The great flood is plausible. Ex. ground water, lakes, rivers, oceans, ice caps, and all the moisture in the air is A LOT of water.
how great does the great flood have to be to qualify?

how great does the great flood have to be to qualify?
*stretches hands out really far*

That great.

how great does the great flood have to be to qualify?

Is that what defeat sounds like? :p

Is that what defeat sounds like? :p
i dont understand your response.

i dont understand your response.He thinks he bested you.

He thinks he bested you.
really?

but all i did was ask a question so i could respond to his suggestion that there is enough water on earth to make a great flood. theres no sense responding to a point that he didnt really make.

really?

but all i did was ask a question so i could respond to his suggestion that there is enough water on earth to make a great flood. theres no sense responding to a point that he didnt really make.

Sorry i thought u were being a smart with me.:(

The great flood is plausible. Ex. ground water, lakes, rivers, oceans, ice caps, and all the moisture in the air is A LOT of water.

doesn't this have the problem of all that water being, you know, already here? i mean, ignoring the many many many things that make the story stupid beyond that, you sorta need to get the water above where it is now, no?

Sorry i thought u were being a smart with me.:(
you may have spelled it out before but i didnt want to search the thread.

what is your take on "the great flood"?

The simple answer to this thread, is that both sides are entitled to their beliefs. Neither should waste their time trying to debate the other, because it will get you nowhere. :)

My take on the great flood is that it covered the whole earth.

My take on the great flood is that it covered the whole earth.

have you ever seen a mountain?

The simple answer to this thread, is that both sides are entitled to their beliefs. Neither should waste their time trying to debate the other, because it will get you nowhere. :)

I must disagree. Debate has played a large role in the determination of my (lack of) religious belief, and it may continue to do so in the future. Perhaps I will find that there is some religion out there that convinces me of its correctness; perhaps it is one with which I am already familiar.
But I was once a fairly devout Christian, and I somewhat doubt I would be where I am today without having debated the issue.

It's just like when people make the same claim, but about politics. I've changed my mind many times on politics throughout my life so far, and I'm only 20 years old.

My take on the great flood is that it covered the whole earth.
and what happened to the extra water afterwards?

and what happened to the extra water afterwards?

Well, everyone was rather thirsty...

and what happened to the extra water afterwards?

God used Bounty Paper Towel: The Picker Uper!

The simple answer to this thread, is that both sides are entitled to their beliefs. Neither should waste their time trying to debate the other, because it will get you nowhere. :)

is there no truth of the matter?

and what happened to the extra water afterwards?

It went in the air creating the water cycle. Thats the best answer i have cuz i was not there when it happened.